Houghton v. Lee
50 Cal. 101, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 96
Opinion
The court below properly held that the sum due from the insurance company was not subject to garnishment by a creditor of the husband.
Order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.
Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Houghton v. Lee, 50 Cal. 101, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 96 (Cal. 1875).
50 Cal. 101 (Houghton v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Haaland v. Corporate Management, Inc.
172 B.R. 74 (S.D. California, 1989)
Franklin Fire Insurance v. Butts
42 S.W.2d 559 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1931)
Thompson-Ritchie & Co. v. Graves
120 So. 634 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1929)
Gardenhire v. Glasser
226 P. 911 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1924)
Davis v. McGilbray
196 P. 339 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Langley v. Finnall
83 P. 291 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
California Fruit Transp. Co. v. Anderson
79 F. 404 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1897)
Ellis v. Pratt City
111 Ala. 629 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)
Chase v. Swayne
30 S.W. 1049 (Texas Supreme Court, 1895)
Puget Sound Dressed Beef & Packing Co. v. Jeffs
29 L.R.A. 154 (Washington Supreme Court, 1895)
Smith v. Ratcliff
66 Miss. 683 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1889)
Kingsland, Ferguson & Co. v. McGowan Bros.
3 Willson 56 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1885)
Continental Insurance v. Daly
33 Kan. 601 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1885)
Carter's Administrators v. Carter
20 Fla. 558 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1884)
Kaiser v. Seaton
17 N.W. 664 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1883)
Hunter v. Wooldert
55 Tex. 433 (Texas Supreme Court, 1881)
Cameron v. Fay
55 Tex. 58 (Texas Supreme Court, 1881)
Whittenberg v. Lloyd
49 Tex. 633 (Texas Supreme Court, 1878)
Probst & Hilb v. Scott
31 Ark. 652 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1877)