Hammel v. Schuster
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Clark County. Garnishment. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. At the close of the plaintiffs’ testimony a motion for a nonsuit was granted, and from the judgment entered accordingly in favor of the garnishee, the plaintiffs appealed. contended, inter aUa, that when facts are required to be proved by affidavit, such affidavit must contain averments sufficiently precise and unequivocal to sustain an indictment for perjury if the…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Clark County. Garnishment. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. At the close of the plaintiffs’ testimony a motion for a nonsuit was granted, and from the judgment entered accordingly in favor of the garnishee, the plaintiffs appealed. contended, inter aUa, that when facts are required to be proved by affidavit, such affidavit must contain averments sufficiently precise and unequivocal to sustain an indictment for perjury if the facts are untruly stated. Bacon’s Abr. Affidavit (C); Watson v. Walker, 1 Moore & S. 437; Regina v. M. & L. R. Co. 3…
1Opinion of the CourtTayloR, J.
The respondent was summoned as garnishee in an action by the appellants against the firm of Canon Bros. The respondent claims to be the assignee of the firm of Canon Bros, under an assignment made by them on the 23d of February, 1883, to him, as their assignee for the benefit of their creditors. The appellants attack the assignment as void in law on account of certain alleged defects therein, and as void in fact because it is alleged that it was made to defraud, hinder, and delay the creditors of the assignors.
The learned counsel for the appellants claims that the assignment is void in law…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rumery v. McCullochWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fuhrman v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885