Remington v. Hazard

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Remington v. Hazard

49 A. 497, 23 R.I. 142, 1901 R.I. LEXIS 99

DecidedJune 28, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A. 497 (Remington v. Hazard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Remington v. Hazard, 49 A. 497, 23 R.I. 142, 1901 R.I. LEXIS 99 (R.I. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A writ was issued by the plaintiff June 23, 1900, returnable July 2, 1900, and by it the defendant’s wages *143 were attached. The writ Was not served upon the defendant, and another writ was issued June 28, 1900, returnable July 12, 1900, and again the defendant’s wages were attached. This writ was not served on the defendant, and a third writ was issued July 12, returnable July 26, 1900, with a third attachment, and this writ was entered in court.. The' case comes before us on exceptions to the ruling of the District Court charging the garnishee.

H. C. Curtis, for plaintiff. Eugene H. Lincoln, for defendant.

(1) The procedure in this case was such an obvious abuse of the process of the court that no valid attachment can be allowed under it. Such an attempt to accumulate attachments was strongly condemned in McNally v. Wilkinson, 20 R. I. 315, and this case does not differ from that one.

Exceptions sustained, and case remitted to the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District with directions to discharge the garnishee.

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

Per Curiam.

A writ was issued by the plaintiff June 23, 1900, returnable July 2, 1900, and by it the defendant’s wages *143 were attached. The writ Was not served upon the defendant, and another writ was issued June 28, 1900, returnable July 12, 1900, and again the defendant’s wages were attached. This writ was not served on the defendant, and a third writ was issued July 12, returnable July 26, 1900, with a third attachment, and this writ was entered in court.. The' case comes before us on exceptions to the ruling of the District Court charging the garnishee.

H. C. Curtis, for plaintiff. Eugene H. Lincoln, for defendant.

(1) The procedure in this case was such an obvious abuse of the process of the court that no valid attachment can be allowed under it. Such an attempt to accumulate attachments was strongly condemned in McNally v. Wilkinson, 20 R. I. 315, and this case does not differ from that one.

Exceptions sustained, and case remitted to the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District with directions to discharge the garnishee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A. 497, 23 R.I. 142, 1901 R.I. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remington-v-hazard-ri-1901.