Chambers v. Yarnell

Supreme Court of Alabama

Chambers v. Yarnell

37 Ala. 400

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 Ala. 400 (Chambers v. Yarnell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chambers v. Yarnell, 37 Ala. 400 (Ala. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, J.

The judgment in this case-cannot be supported, because it fails to recite the fact and amount of the recovery against the defendant in execution. Nothing in this record, except the ex-parte affidavit-of the attorney on which the garnishee process was sued out, shows that the plaintiff has a judgment against the elder Leonard. The record does not show enough to.justify the judgment against the garnishee. — Faulks v. Heard & Due, 31 Ala. 516.

[2.] The judgment against -the garnishee, for the coste of the collateral issue between -the plaintiff and the alleged transferree, is also erroneous. The garnishee was not a party to that issue. The-'transferree, when brought in, was the party contesting with the plaintiff in garnishment. Hence, if he set up a claim to the debt, and failed to make it good, he was the unsuccessful party against whom judgment for costs should have been rendered. — Code, § 2554.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STONE, J.

The judgment in this case-cannot be supported, because it fails to recite the fact and amount of the recovery against the defendant in execution. Nothing in this record, except the ex-parte affidavit-of the attorney on which the garnishee process was sued out, shows that the plaintiff has a judgment against the elder Leonard. The record does not show enough to.justify the judgment against the garnishee. — Faulks v. Heard & Due, 31 Ala. 516.

[2.] The judgment against -the garnishee, for the coste of the collateral issue between -the plaintiff and the alleged transferree, is also erroneous. The garnishee was not a party to that issue. The-'transferree, when brought in, was the party contesting with the plaintiff in garnishment. Hence, if he set up a claim to the debt, and failed to make it good, he was the unsuccessful party against whom judgment for costs should have been rendered. — Code, § 2554.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Ala. 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-yarnell-ala-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack