Norris v. Burgoyne
SAMUEL NORRIS v. WILLIAM M. BURGOYNE and JOHN V. PLUME
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Heydeneeldt (author), William J. Murray, Jr.
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydeneeldt
Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.
A garnishee can only be required to answer as to his liability to the debtor defendant, at the time of the service of the garnishment. In this case the garnishment was served on the 12th of March. The jury find that the garnishees had money of the defendants, subsequent to the 12th of March. This finding will not support the judgment, because the garnishment is an attachment of existing debts, and what does not exist cannot be attached.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Cited by
- Smith v. Crocker First National Bank Civ. 17192 · 1957-07-29
- Street v. Reingke Civ. 9611 · 1934-11-05
- Steineck v. Haas-Baruch Co. Docket No. 6019. · 1930-06-05
- Gardner v. Pioneer-Pacific Worsted Co. Docket No. 4107. · 1930-05-22