Linn v. Taylor & Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. T. M. Arrington. Wm. Taylor & Co., the appellees, instituted their suit by attachment in the county court (now city) of Montgomery, against Ezekiel Donnell, a non-resident, and on the 21st day of December, 1860, the sheriff of Montgomery county executed the attachment, by summoning Charles Linn, the appellant, as garnishee, to answer as to his indebtedness to the non-resident defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. T. M. Arrington. Wm. Taylor & Co., the appellees, instituted their suit by attachment in the county court (now city) of Montgomery, against Ezekiel Donnell, a non-resident, and on the 21st day of December, 1860, the sheriff of Montgomery county executed the attachment, by summoning Charles Linn, the appellant, as garnishee, to answer as to his indebtedness to the non-resident defendant. Linn answered admitting his indebtedness, but stated that the indebtedness was claimed by another non-resident, one J. R. Donnell, to whom, as…
1Opinion of the CourtByrd, J.
By section 2546 of the Code of 1853, the plaintiff is authorized to controvert the answer of the garnishee, and an issue is to be made up under the direction of the' court, in which the plaintiff must allege in what respect the answer is untrue. In this case no such proceeding was had on the filing of the answer. Nor do we intend to intimate that it should have been controverted in order to authorize the plaintiff to have the notice issued to the alleged transferree of the debt, and subject it to the payment of the debt due from the defendant in attachment or judgment.
Section 2549 of the same…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mock v. KingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
3Cited by1 opinion
- Jones v. AbernathyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914