Wingfield v. McLure
| Decision Date | 26 February 1887 |
| Citation | 3 S.W. 439 |
| Parties | WINGFIELD <I>v.</I> McLURE and others. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
On June 4, 1884, appellant filed his bill for an injunction against appellees, setting up, in substance, the following facts: That Geyer, Adams & Co. had obtained judgment against William T. Owens, before a justice of the peace for Nevada county, Arkansas, and after the issuance of an execution, and a return thereon nulla bona, filed a transcript of such judgment in the circuit clerk's office, which was recorded, etc., as required by law; that afterwards, on the twenty-third day of December, 1883, Geyer, Adams & Co. sued out a writ of garnishment from the circuit court against appellant, commanding him to answer on the first day of the March, 1884, term of said court, which was served on him, etc.; that the allegations and interrogatories were filed on or before the third day, and, on the fourth day after the return-day of said writ, Geyer, Adams & Co. obtained a judgment by default against appellant as such garnishee; that an execution had been sued out, and was about to be levied, upon appellant's property by appellee McLure, the sheriff of Pike county; that he was not indebted to said Owens, and had in his possession no property belonging to him, (Owens,) except a small batch of worthless claims, which he offered to turn over to the court or hold subject to its orders; that on the day prior to the return-day of the writ he was taken sick, and by reason of said sickness was unavoidably prevented from attending and answering said allegations and interrogatories for one week, and until some time after the judgment was rendered against him; that during his sickness the Little Missouri river and creeks near it became overflowed, and prevented the appellant from crossing for an additional period of 10 days, and appellant thought the Nevada circuit court did not last exceeding two weeks; that he had intended to appear and answer, denying his indebtedness, etc. Appellee filed a general demurrer to the complaint, and motion to dissolve the injunction. The court sustained the demurrer, and dissolved the injunction, and assessed the damages sustained by Geyer, Adams & Co. by reason of the injunction, and rendered judgment therefor against plaintiff, and plaintiff appeals.
Atkinson & Tompkins, for appellant. Smoote, McRae & Hinton, for appellee.
The judgment recovered by appellees Geyer, Adams & Co.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial