Welsh v. Woods
Hawaii Supreme Court
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION OP
WIRTZ, J.
The remedy of garnishment, being a statutory creature, has only the scope which the legislature accorded it. Since it is in derogation of the common law, the statutory terms governing its application must be strictly construed in favor of the persons against whom it may be invoked. Davies & Co. v. Hilo Pineapple Co., 27 Haw. 651. Being summary in its effect and liable to be abused and used oppressively, its application should be carefully guarded and confined strictly within the limits prescribed by the statute.
In Henriques v. Vinhaca, 20 Haw. 702, 707, this…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Hale Bros. v. MillikenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. McLouth Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
- Dunn v. MackeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Old Ben Coal Co. v. Universal Coal Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Wilson v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1849
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.