Porter & Blair Hardware Co. v. Perdue

• Decision Date: 19 December 1894
• Citation: 16 So. 713,105 Ala. 293
• Parties: PORTER & BLAIR HARDWARE CO. v. PERDUE ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So. 713

105 Ala. 293

PORTER & BLAIR HARDWARE CO. v. PERDUE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 19, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Butler county; John R. Tyson, Judge.

Action by the Porter & Blair Hardware Company against James H Perdue and others. The city of Greenville was summoned a garnishee. From a judgment discharging the garnishee plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

No notice of the issuance and service of said garnishment was served upon the defendants. On May 3, 1893, at the spring term, 1893, of the circuit court of Butler county, the garnishee, without objecting to the jurisdiction of said court, made answer in writing to the writ of garnishment, in which it is stated, among other things, that the city of Greenville was a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Alabama, and that it was and would be indebted to the defendant James H. Perdue for building and erecting a public school building for the said city under a contract which was set out in full in its answer. At the same term of the court, one Edward Crenshaw, "as amicus curiae, and also as attorney for and representing the defendants in said cause, and appearing as such only for the purpose of making these motions, and objecting to this court rendering judgment against the garnishee in this case and condemning the debt garnished in the hands of the garnishee to the satisfaction of plaintiff's judgment," moved the court to quash and dismiss the writ of garnishment, and the proceedings thereunder, on the grounds-First, that the court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the same; second, that the court has no jurisdiction over the garnishee in this case because it is not subject to garnishment; and, third, because the court is without jurisdiction to render a legal and valid judgment against the garnishee. On the submission of the cause together with the motions, in accordance with the agreement of counsel, the court rendered judgment quashing and dissolving the writ of garnishment, dismissed the proceedings thereunder, and discharged the garnishee.

L. M Lane and C. E. Hamilton, for appellant.

Edward Crenshaw, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

Garnishment is a remedy or process of purely statutory creation and existence. There is no authority for a resort to it,-courts are without jurisdiction to grant and effectuate it,-except in cases and against parties which and who are within the terms of the statute....