Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Pete

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 1991No. 07-CA-59422Published

1ConcurrenceRobertson, Justice

I concur in the result we reach and in the judgment wé affirm. I write separately because I think common sense and common law demand a more formalistic focus upon the depository bank’s duties when served with a writ of garnishment. No doubt garnisheed joint accounts are troublesome. I think the obligations of the bank so served are measured by its contract with its depositor(s). The bank is obliged the same as when a holder presents a check drawn by the judgment debtor.

First, a few basics. Garnishment is a right and a process grounded in statute. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-35-23 (1972) provides,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Park Enterprises, Inc. v. TrachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
  2. Delta Fertilizer, Inc. v. WeaverMississippi Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Collins v. General Electric Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Cupit v. BrooksMississippi Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Staley v. BrownMississippi Supreme Court · 1964

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API