Craft & Co. v. Summersell

Decided November 15, 1890

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1890-11-15

Garnishment in aid of ■ Pending Action. Appeal from the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. O. J. Semmes. The appellant in this case, John Craft, doing business under thé name of Craft & Co., commenced suit by summons and complaint, in that name, against Charles H. Bostwick; and sued out garnishments, June 28th, 1889, in aid of the action, against John F. Summersell and others, as the debtors of said Bostwick.

Relies on National Commercial Bank v. Miller & Co. · Henderson v. Ala. Gold Life Insurance · Godden v. Pierson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1983

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

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 →

STONE, C. J.

¶1— The demand sought to be reached by the process of garnishment is not such a claim as the debtor, the defendant in this garnishment proceeding, could recover from the garnishee in debt, or indebitatus assumpsit. The gar*432niC ee was, therefore, rightly discharged- — Nat. Com. Bank v. Miller, 77 Ala. 168; Henderson v. Ala. Gold Life Ins. Co., 72 Ala. 32; Godden v. Pierson, 42 Ala. 370; Teague v. LeGrand, 85 Ala. 493.

¶2Furthermore, the property, which the garnishee’s answer disclosed heffiad in his possession, were cheques, or choses in action, which are not subjects of garnishment. — Levisohn v. Waganer, 76 Ala. 412; Marston v. Carr, 16 Ala. 332; Jones v. Morris, 2 Ala. 528; Drake on Attachments, § 481, note 6.

¶3These views render unnecessary a consideration of the rulings on the evidence. If there was error therein, it was error without injury. ■

¶4Affirmed.