Norris v. Burgoyne

California Supreme Court

Norris v. Burgoyne

4 Cal. 409

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1854

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 4 Cal. 409 (Norris v. Burgoyne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norris v. Burgoyne, 4 Cal. 409 (Cal. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.

A garnishee can only be required to answer as to his liability to the debtor defendant, at the time of the service of the garnishment. In this case the garnishment was served on the 12th of March. The jury find that the garnishees had money of the defendants, subsequent to the 12th of March. This finding will not support the judgment, because the garnishment is an attachment of existing debts, and what does not exist cannot be attached.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.

A garnishee can only be required to answer as to his liability to the debtor defendant, at the time of the service of the garnishment. In this case the garnishment was served on the 12th of March. The jury find that the garnishees had money of the defendants, subsequent to the 12th of March. This finding will not support the judgment, because the garnishment is an attachment of existing debts, and what does not exist cannot be attached.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cal. 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-burgoyne-cal-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack