Blackman & Co. v. Collier
| Decision Date | 08 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 352 |
| Citation | 68 So. 519,12 Ala.App. 568 |
| Parties | BLACKMAN & CO. v. COLLIER. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Garnishment proceedings by Blackman & Co., in which R.E. Collier intervenes, claiming the funds in the hands of one Newton the garnishee. From a judgment for claimant, Blackman & Co. appeals. Reversed and remanded.
H.K Martin, of Dothan, for appellant.
E.H. Hill, of Dothan, for appellee.
The appellants here, Blackman & Co., were plaintiffs in the justice of the peace court in a garnishment proceeding wherein, upon proper affidavit there made, a writ of garnishment was issued against one Newton as garnishee upon a judgment which plaintiffs had previously obtained in said justice court against one Rogers as defendant. Code, §§ 4301 4302. The garnishment writ was duly served on the garnishee, and notice of its issuance upon the defendant in conformity with the provisions of sections 4304 and 4305 of the Code, and the said garnishee, Newton, thereupon filed formal answer in writing to the writ, as required by section 4316 of the Code, admitting an indebtedness to the defendant, Rogers, as being then due; but the garnishee did not in such answer, nor in any amendment or supplement thereto, ever suggest, as was his right under section 4328 of the Code, any claimant of the fund, or allege any facts from which it could even be inferred that any person other than defendant claimed or had any interest in the same. It appears, however, that before the return day of the writ of garnishment, which was fixed therein at December 3, 1913, R.E. Collier, the appellee here, who had not, as said, been in any way suggested by the garnishee as a claimant of the fund, voluntarily and on his own initiative came in and sought to make himself a party to the proceeding by filing an affidavit in the cause, setting up and claiming therein that the debt which the garnishee, Newton, admitted to be due the defendant, Rogers, belonged to him, Collier. However, he, Collier, did not appear at justice court on the day set for the trial of the garnishment case (said December 3, 1913, the return day of the writ), and the justice in effect then ignored his claim and rendered judgment, as provided by section 4320 of the Code, in favor of the plaintiffs, Blackman & Co., who are appellants here, against the garnishee, Newton, on his said answer so admitting an indebtedness to the defendant, Rogers. Later, and after the time for an appeal from this judgment had expired, the said Collier applied to the probate judge of the county for and procured the issuance by him of a statutory writ of certiorari, directed to the justice of the peace and requiring him to send up all the papers and certify his judgment in the cause to the circuit court for trial de novo, which was accordingly done. When the case was there called for trial, the said plaintiffs (appellants here) moved to dismiss it from the circuit court, assigning numerous grounds therefor, all in substance and to the effect that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the cause, since the garnishee had not in his answer, nor in any amendment or supplement thereto, in any wise suggested the said Collier as the claimant of the debt which the garnishee admitted in his answer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- McKinney v. State
-
Stovall v. Hamilton
...plaintiff, and notwithstanding that by reason of it the garnishee may also be liable to the transferee or assignee for the debt. Blackman & Co. v. Collier, supra. And, although the should deny in his answer any indebtedness at all to the defendant, yet if, upon contest of such answer, the p......
- Martin v. Henderson