Houston v. Wolcott & Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Lee District Court. In March, 1851, Wolcott & Co., having a judgment against one Farner, issued an execution thereon, and notified Houston to answer as garnishee. He appeared, made answer as required by the Code, and thereupon, judgment was rendered against him for the amount shown by the answer to be owing. In October, 1851, one Yining, as a creditor of Farner & Go., summoned Houston as garnishee.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Lee District Court. In March, 1851, Wolcott & Co., having a judgment against one Farner, issued an execution thereon, and notified Houston to answer as garnishee. He appeared, made answer as required by the Code, and thereupon, judgment was rendered against him for the amount shown by the answer to be owing. In October, 1851, one Yining, as a creditor of Farner & Go., summoned Houston as garnishee. To this summons he answered, showing an indebtedness to either Farner, or Farner & Co., for which judgment was rendered against him, in favor of the plaintiff, Yining. This judgment…
1Opinion of the CourtWeight, C. J.
We see no good reason for disturbing this decree. It is true, that a garnishee, as between the creditor and debtor, is an indifferent person. He owes the debt to some one, and should not be required to pay it but once, unless, indeed, he brings upon himself a double liability by his own negligence. The law will not protect a careless, negligent garnishee, any more than it will justify carelessness in any other party, or suitor; and especially •where such negligence may result to the injury of a bona fide creditor.
In this case, complainant states that ho did not know of .the existence of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hair v. LoweSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
- Penny v. MartinNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ames v. MaclaySupreme Court of Iowa · 1862
- Burlington & Missouri River Railway Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- Commercial State Bank v. PierceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916