Ludington v. Bogdanoff

256 A.2d 921, 1969 D.C. App. LEXIS 324
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 3, 1969
Docket4692
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 256 A.2d 921 (Ludington v. Bogdanoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ludington v. Bogdanoff, 256 A.2d 921, 1969 D.C. App. LEXIS 324 (D.C. 1969).

Opinion

NEBEKER, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from an order denying appellants-intervenors’ 1 motion to quash an attachment. The attachment was issued before judgment, pursuant to D.C.Code 1967, § 15-501, since the defendants in the suit were nonresidents. The suit was filed and the attachment issued on June 2, 1967. The intervenors had earlier obtained a judgment against the defendants in Maryland on June 1, 1967. Subsequently, on September 8, 1967, they obtained a judgment in the District of Columbia on their Maryland judgment. A writ of attachment issued to enforce that judgment and the answer thereto by the garnishee stated that the defendants’ wages were subject to the aforementioned attachment before judgment. 2

As we stated in Clark v. District Discount Co., D.C.Mun.App., 151 A.2d 198 (1959), an order denying a motion to quash an attachment is not final hence not generally appealable. See also Hartz v. Segner, D.C.Mun.App., 157 A.2d 810 (1960). By way of an exception, this court may hear appeals from interlocutory orders only “whereby the possession of property is changed or affected * * * ” D.C.Code 1967, § 11-741(2). Since possession of property is not affected by the denial of intervenors’ motion to quash, this appeal is premature and we are without jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed without prejudice to further proceedings in the trial court.

1

. Hereinafter referred to as intervenors.

2

. The record on appeal does not contain any of the material from the file in that foreign judgment action, and appellants’ brief goes beyond the record on appeal in reciting facts from that file. While this court can judicially know the records of the trial court in related litigation, the better practice is for counsel relying on such material to include it in the record on appeal. See Hules 19, 21 and 31 of the Rules of this court.

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

Related

Artis v. United States
505 A.2d 52 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1986)
Jenkins v. Parker
428 A.2d 367 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1981)
Wright v. Wright
386 A.2d 1191 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 A.2d 921, 1969 D.C. App. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludington-v-bogdanoff-dc-1969.