Dalhoff Construction Co. v. Adams
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court. ArRxandRr M. DuRRir, Judge. Adams obtained judgment against Gibbs on a claim of $345.99, and instituted garnishment proceedings against the Dalhoff Construction Company, alleging that Gibbs had a contract under it to construct one and one-third miles of railroad, and that plaintiff furnished supplies for his laborers and for his teams'. The evidence showed that the garnishee sublet six miles of work, which it had undertaken, to Kimball,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court. ArRxandRr M. DuRRir, Judge. Adams obtained judgment against Gibbs on a claim of $345.99, and instituted garnishment proceedings against the Dalhoff Construction Company, alleging that Gibbs had a contract under it to construct one and one-third miles of railroad, and that plaintiff furnished supplies for his laborers and for his teams'. The evidence showed that the garnishee sublet six miles of work, which it had undertaken, to Kimball, who sublet same to Ford, who sublet one and one-third miles thereof to Gibbs. The garnishee requested the court to give…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
The undisputed testimony shows that Gibbs was a subcontractor under Ford; that the Dalhoff Construction Company had no contract with him. The uncontroverted proof also shows that the Dalhoif Construction Company had no money in its hands belonging to Gibbs at the time the writ of garnishment was served on it. True, appellee’s witnesses testify that they heard Dalhoif say “that Gibbs got scared and run off before he was hurt; that there was $550 coming to him.” But Dalhoif did not say that his company was owing Gibbs any money, or that any money was coming to Gibbs from his company. Nor does…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Terminal Truck Brokers v. Memphis Truck & Trailer, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1983