Cincinnati & Little Rock Slate Co. v. Bridge & Co.

17 Ark. 364
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1856
StatusPublished

This text of 17 Ark. 364 (Cincinnati & Little Rock Slate Co. v. Bridge & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cincinnati & Little Rock Slate Co. v. Bridge & Co., 17 Ark. 364 (Ark. 1856).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Bridge & Shepherd sued out of the Pulaski Circuit Court, a writ of garnishment, reciting that they had recovered a judgment in said court, against Dyer, &c. “And, whereas, it is alleged by said plaintiffs, that they have reason to believe, that David Bender, Mrs. Bebecca Graham, and the Cincinnati .and Little Bock Slate Company, have in their hands and possession, goods and chattels, moneys, and credits and effects, belonging to the said Dyer.” The sheriff was, therefore, commanded to summon the said garnishees to appear, &c., “ to answer what goods, chattels, moneys, credits and effects, they may have in their hands or possession, belonging to said Dyer,” &c.

The writ was returned, executed upon the garnishees.

At the return term, the plaintiffs filed separate allegations against each of the garnishees, in the form following: “And the plaintiffs, by attorney come, and show and suggest to the court here, that said garnishee has in her possession and control, divers moneys, &c., and therefore, propounds to said garnishee, the following interrogatories,” &c. Then follow interrogatories.

The garnishees made default, and the plaintiffs took separate judgments against Bender and tlie Slate Company, for the amount of their judgment against Dyer, dismissing as to Mrs. Graham. The Slate Company brought error.

It was error to join the several garnishees in the same writ, without allegations of joint liability or indebtedness, &c., as held in Thorn & Robins vs. Woodruff et al., 5 Ark. Rep. 55; Moreland et al. vs. Pelham, 2 Eng. Rep. 338.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, &c.

Absent, Mr. Justice Soott.

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

Related

Thorn & Robins v. Woodruff
5 Ark. 55 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1843)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Ark. 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-little-rock-slate-co-v-bridge-co-ark-1856.