Head v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 06 December 1887
• Citation: 3 So. 293,83 Ala. 132
• Parties: HEAD v. BALDWIN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 293

83 Ala. 132

HEAD v. BALDWIN.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 6, 1887

Appeal from circuit court, Greene county; SAMUEL H. SPROTT, Judge.

Contest of answer of garnishee.

The garnishment in this case was sued out by H. M. Baldwin surviving partner of Scears & Baldwin, on a judgment recovered by said firm against John A. Harkness, and was against James B. Head, as administrator of W. B. Harkness deceased. The testimony of the garnishee administrator as to the indebtedness of the estate to said John A. Harkness shows that, among other things, said Harkness said to him that "shortly after his brother James left for Taxes, (which was about 1874 or 1875,) his father, the said Wm. B Harkness, went to him, and said to him that he (John A.) was the only son he had left here, and he did not want him to leave, and if he would not do so, but would remain here, he would give him fifteen hundred dollars' worth of lands more than he would his other sons. The said John A. further stated to me that he frequently applied to his father to give him a deed to the $1,500 worth of land, but his father would always put him off by saying that he owed some debts, and he was afraid, if he gave a deed, his creditors might think he was trying to defraud them. That on December 25, 1878, he went to his father, and said to him that he (the father) was getting old, and in bad health, and liable to die at any time, and he thought he (the father) ought to give him a showing in writing for the land, and the father then told him to draw up the note in controversy, and he would sign it. That he then drew up the note, and the old man signed it, and gave it to him." Upon this and the other evidence noted in the opinion, the court gave the general charge for the defendant, and the verdict and judgment were rendered accordingly, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

G B. Mobley, for appellant.

Wm. P. Webb, for appellee.

STONE C.J.

The present case was an issue formed on a contested answer in garnishment. The affidavit, process of garnishment, its service, and affidavit contesting the answer, are each parts of the record, and they all prove this. The judgment entry tends to confirm it, and the bill of exceptions discloses proof made, all of which is pertinent to such issue. The judgment shows it was rendered, not on admission made in the answer, but on the verdict of the jury rendered in the cause. It sufficiently appears that the issue tried was framed on a contested answer in garnishment, and the...