Ingersoll v. First National Bank

10 Minn. 396
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided July 15, 1865·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the Court

Wilson, C. J.

— Proceedings against a garnishee are for the purpose of reaching the property of the defendant.

The deposit of money in the bank in the name of “ Samuel S. Eaton, Agent,” is not conclusive evidence that the money was the property of said Eaton, or that the bank thereby became his debtor. If the money is not the property of the defendant, the plaintiff is not legally or equitably entitled to it.' The garnishee having denied any indebtedness to the defendant, or the possession or control of any property, money, or effects belonging to him, the plaintiff can only proceed further by filing a supplemental complaint as provided in Chap. 70, of Laws of 1860,

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

Ingersoll v. First National Bank, 10 Minn. 396 (Mich. 1865).

10 Minn. 396 (Ingersoll v. First National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Home Land & Loan Co. v. Routh
185 S.W. 467 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1916)
In re M. E. Dunn & Co.
193 F. 212 (E.D. Arkansas, 1912)
Rock Island Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Fourth National Bank
66 P. 1024 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1901)