Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

61 Miss. 218

Dibrell v. Neely

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1883

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1883-10-15

How. J. W. Buchanan, Judge. On September 12, 1881, Lewis Bean sued Mary A. Neely for two thousand dollars’ damages for breaking and entering his close, and on October 3, 1882, a firm composed ‘of C. C. Dibrell and others, having a judgment in a justice’s court for one hundred and twenty-one dollars against Lewis Bean, obtained a writ of garnishment, which was next day served on Mary A. Neely. She answered, on October 9, 1882, that she was not indebted to Lewis Bean.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1971

5 state decisions

201883189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Campbell, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Until final judgment in favor of Bean against the appellee on his claim for damages she could not be said to be his debtor, so as to be held as a garnishee. The service of a summons on her as garnishee *220could not prevent her from moving for and obtaining a new trial or deprive her of the right to obtain a new trial on any terms she could make with her adversary, and when the judgment was set aside she was not indebted to Bean, and therefore not liable as garnishee. To deny her the right to bargain with Bean as she saw fit, so long as the litigation between them was not finally concluded by judgment against her, would be to prejudice her as a litigant with him by summoning her as garnishee, which is not allowable. Although she agreed to pay a sum of money to extinguish the demand it was for a demand not subject to garnishment when the payment was made. During the term the judgment was subject to be set aside, and until set aside during the term must be regarded as partaking of the nature of the demand on which it was founded.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/61/miss/218 · .json · Public domain