Ingersoll v. First National Bank
This text of 10 Minn. 396 (Ingersoll v. First National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
By the Court —
— 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
10 Minn. 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingersoll-v-first-national-bank-minn-1865.