Loomis v. Shriner
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court. — Hon. John W. McElhinney, Judge. Under section 3436 of the statute, the fund here in dispute was attached by the garnishment writ in this cause, and was therefore, after the service of the writ upon the garnishee, on October 26, 1908, a fund in custodia legis, which could only be thereafter lawfully paid out under the order of the circuit court of St. Louis County, Missouri, in whose sole custody said fund then was.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court. — Hon. John W. McElhinney, Judge. Under section 3436 of the statute, the fund here in dispute was attached by the garnishment writ in this cause, and was therefore, after the service of the writ upon the garnishee, on October 26, 1908, a fund in custodia legis, which could only be thereafter lawfully paid out under the order of the circuit court of St. Louis County, Missouri, in whose sole custody said fund then was. Mattingly v. Boyd, 61 U. S. 228; Potter v. Stevens, Garnishee, 40 Mo. 591; Dinkins v. Woodenware Co., 99 Mo. App. 318; Rood on…
1Opinion of the CourtCaulfield, J.
(after stating the facts). — The finding and judgment of the trial court was right in so far as it refused to hold the garnishee answerable for the rent due in advance on December 15, 1908, after the reversion had passed to Essen. This rent did not become subject to the garnishment, because the tenant’s liability therefore to the defendants Shriner was contingent upon the latter being the owners of the reversion when it became due, and that contingency never happened. [14 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 766; Blankenship & Blake Co. v. Moore et al., 4 Tex. App. (Civ. Cas.) 208, 16 S. W. 780; Thorp v.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Coberly v. CoberlySupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Dinkins v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Thorp v. PrestonMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Ind. School Dist. of West Point v. WernerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Vaughn v. LockeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hyde v. BrandlerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955
- McEwen v. Sterling State BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1928
- Koppen v. Union Iron & Foundry Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Allen v. PullamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1928