McMahon v. Merrick
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county against one Austin, and duly garnished Langdon, Shepard & Co. The disclosure of the garnishees was filed March 21,1884. The facts disclosed are stated in the opinion. On April 17,1884, an order was made by Koon, J., refusing to discharge the garnishees, which order was as follows, viz.: “It is ordered that a motion to discharge the garnishees be and the same is hereby denied.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county against one Austin, and duly garnished Langdon, Shepard & Co. The disclosure of the garnishees was filed March 21,1884. The facts disclosed are stated in the opinion. On April 17,1884, an order was made by Koon, J., refusing to discharge the garnishees, which order was as follows, viz.: “It is ordered that a motion to discharge the garnishees be and the same is hereby denied. And it is further ordered that this matter be and the same is hereby continued to abide the final result of the main action herein.” On April…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
The garnishee summons was served January 18, *2631884, and the disclosure of the garnishees was made March 15th. These facts were then disclosed by the garnishees: The garnishees had settled a disputed claim of the defendant against them, agreeing upon and adjusting the amount of their liability to the defendant at the sum of $1,000, one-half of which was paid. It had been agreed that the remaining $500 should be and remain in the hands of these claimants until the garnishees should be discharged from liability under garnishee proceedings then pending against them in an action •against this…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. BarclaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Current News Features, Inc. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- Moore v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1885