Ringold v. Suiter
West Virginia Supreme Court
cited Code, c. 106, s. 5; Id. s. 14; Id. s. 16; 12 Gratt. 655. cited Drake Att. 589, 590 n.; Id. 458; Code, c. 116, s. 14; 20 W. Va. 521; Code, c. 131, s. 5; Bump. Fraud. Conv. 567-569 ; 2 Cowp. 432 ; 6 Wall. 312 ; 7 Mo. App. 450; 4 Johns. 536; 1 Johns. Ch’y 478; Twyner’s Oase 1 Lead. Cas.; 3 Ohio St. 246; 112 U. S. 216; 12 How. (H. S.) 39-46; 85 Ind. 434; 2 Thomp. Tr. § 26 ; 3 Rob. Pr. 520; 1 Wash. 372.
1Opinion of the Court
Brannon, Judge :
In an action at law by P. R. Ringold& Co. against J. K. Suiter in the Circuit Court of Cabell county an attachment issued and was served on Miller & Ingalls, as garnishees, on 13th Hovember, 1889, and on 9th December, 1889, said garnishees answered that they were not indebted to Suiter, but that on 4th of Hovember, 1886, said’firm had bought certain goods and accounts of Suiter for five thousand dollars, for which they were to pay by giving negotiable notes> and that they had given such notes. The plaintiff's suggested that the garnishees had not fully answered, and the court…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Murtha v. . CurleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Fearey v. CummingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Balt. & Ohio R. R. v. Gallahue's adm'rsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1855
- Ferguson v. HillmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Carey & Co. v. Burruss & PitzerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1882
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Vance Shoe Co. v. HaughtWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
- Cochran v. ParisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1854
- Harris v. ElliottWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1898
- Dinkins v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Coda v. ThompsonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.