Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Grimes

• Decision Date: 16 January 1894
• Citation: 38 Neb. 878,57 N.W. 568
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
• Parties: AULTMAN, MILLER & CO. v. GRIMES.

38 Neb. 878

57 N.W. 568

AULTMAN, MILLER & CO.

v.GRIMES.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 16, 1894.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A sheriff who has received for service an order of attachment and garnishee notices for alleged debtors of the defendant will not be held liable, in an action by the plaintiff in the attachment suit, on the sole ground that he procured like notices to be served on the same parties as garnishees in a suit by attachment, in which he is plaintiff, against the same defendant,after the receipt of the notices first mentioned, and before service thereof.

2. Petition examined, and held not to state a cause of action.

Error to district court, Johnson county; Broady, Judge.

Action on a bond by Aultman, Miller & Co. against William Grimes. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

D. F. Osgood, for plaintiff in error.

S. P. Davidson and J. Hall Hitchcock, for defendant in error.

POST, J.

This was an action by the plaintiff in error, in the district court of Johnson county, against the defendant in error, William Grimes, on his official bond as sheriff of said county. The allegations of the petition are substantially as follows: On the 20th day of October, 1888, the plaintiff in error commenced an action in the district court of Johnson county against one George H. Dennett to recover the sum of $1,417, and caused an order of attachment to be issued in said action, and also garnishee notices for Charles M. Chamberlain and the Chamberlain Banking Company, as supposed debtors of the defendant therein, which writs were, on the day above named, delivered to defendant in error, as sheriff, for service; that the latter intentionally neglected and refused to serve said writs until the 22d day of October; that, in the mean time, defendant in error had commenced an action in the county court of said county against said Dennett to recover the sum of $______, and caused an order of attachment to be issued in said action, and also garnishee notices for the said Charles M. Chamberlain and the Chamberlain Banking Company, which last-named notices defendant in error, as sheriff, served on the aforesaid garnishees previous to the service of the notices issued in the action of plaintiff in error; that on the 14th day of December, 1888, said garnishees answered in the action of the defendant in error, admitting that they had in their possession property and money of the defendant, Dennett, amounting, in the aggregate, to $2,900, as security for a debt of $2,700, due and owing by the latter to them, whereupon they were ordered to pay into court a sum sufficient to satisfy the judgment of defendant in error, with costs, to...