Moore v. Kelley
| Decision Date | 26 June 1886 |
| Parties | MOORE & CO. v. KELLEY ET AL |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Monroe Circuit Court, Hon. M. T. SANDERS, Circuit Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
H. A Parker for Appellants.
Appellants claim that in actions of this kind, where an attachment is issued and garnishments served on different parties who owe defendant, that the garnishment is only incidental to the main suit between plaintiff and defendant; and that is even so in judicial garnishment.
From the time the garnishment is served, the property that is in the garnishee's hands is in the custody of the law. and as was said by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Brashears v. West, 7 Peters, 608, Drake on Att., pp. 453, 691, 693.
The garnishees have nothing to do with any question as to proceedings, regularity or jurisdiction; all that is necessary or proper for them to do is to learn whether there is a valid judgment against the defendant or not; and all this points out very clearly that the garnishment is entirely incidental to the main action between the plaintiff and defendant.
From the incipiency of this character of actions they are dual in their nature; i. e., they may be personal, or they may be against the property of defendant, or both.
A garnishment is nothing more than an action against the property of the defendant in the hands of a third person, and is truly termed by Mr. Waples, "an ancillary proceeding;" and he also terms it an "added incident" to the main suit, and this is clearly the case from the fact that if the main issue or suit between the plaintiff and defendant falls, all garnishments and ancillary proceedings go with it, but the converse is not true. Waples on Attachment pp. 4, 13, 68, 418.
This question has been virtually settled by Flynn v State, 42 Ark. 320.
The circuit court had jurisdiction of the main case, and the garnishments are but incidents of that suit, regardless of the amount named in the writ of garnishment, or the answer of garnishees.
The appellants brought an action in the Monroe circuit court, on a money demand against Alfred Owens, and caused an attachment to issue under which D. W. Kelley and W. W. Spence were summoned as garnishees. After the appellants had obtained judgment in personam against the defendant, and the attachment had been sustained. the garnishees appeared and answered; the one that he was indebted to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawrence v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
...217 S.W.2d 620. Service of a writ of garnishment upon a debtor is an attachment of the debt or a form of levy thereupon. Moore v. Kelley, 47 Ark. 219, 1 S.W. 97. Once the intervention was filed, as permitted by the statute, the credit company could have protected itself only by paying the f......
-
Pinyan v. Berry
... ... The garnishment proceeding is not instituted to ... settle the question of indebtedness between the attached ... debtor and third persons (Moore v. Kelley, 47 Ark ... 219, 1 S.W. 97), and the only effect of the court's order ... upon the garnishee is to confer upon the attaching creditor ... ...
-
Traylor v. Allen
...debt of $ 250, which was within the court's jurisdiction. But we think the larger debt was subject to garnishment for the $ 125 due. 47 Ark. 219; 31 id. 652; 46 id. Dan W. Jones & McCain for appellee. The justice had no jurisdiction, and the circuit court acquired none on appeal. 5 Ark. 214......
-
Pinyan v. Berry
...garnishment proceeding is not instituted to settle the question of indebtedness between the attached debtor and third persons, (Moore v. Kelley, 47 Ark. 219, 1 S. W. Rep. 97,) and the only effect of the court's order upon the garnishee is to confer upon the attaching creditor of his credito......