San Francisco Commercial Agency v. McKeon

California Court of Appeal

San Francisco Commercial Agency v. McKeon

149 P. 52, 27 Cal. App. 156, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 98

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 2, 1915

DocketCiv. No. 1469.

StatusPublished

This text of 149 P. 52 (San Francisco Commercial Agency v. McKeon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

San Francisco Commercial Agency v. McKeon, 149 P. 52, 27 Cal. App. 156, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants brought to this court upon the judgment-roll.

The sole point presented for determination is as to whether or not the trial court, in overruling the defendants’ general demurrer to the complaint committed error.

The complaint alleges that “On the 14th day of February, 1913, defendants became indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $383.90 by virtue of a certain writ of garnishment being served upon said defendants by the sheriff of the county of Alameda” in that certain action “in which the San Francisco Commercial Agency was the plaintiff, and one Margaret Hall the defendant.” <

*157 The statute on the subject, it is true, in the case of a garnishment requires that the sheriff in executing the writ shall not only leave a copy of the writ with the person owing the debt to the defendant, but also a notice that the debt owing by him to the defendant is attached in pursuance of such writ. But we think the complaint, in the absence of a special demurrer, states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action; and it was so held in the recent case of Midway Five Oil Co. v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Los Angeles, 25 Cal. App. 366, [143 Pac. 800].

Judgment affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants brought to this court upon the judgment-roll.

The sole point presented for determination is as to whether or not the trial court, in overruling the defendants’ general demurrer to the complaint committed error.

The complaint alleges that “On the 14th day of February, 1913, defendants became indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $383.90 by virtue of a certain writ of garnishment being served upon said defendants by the sheriff of the county of Alameda” in that certain action “in which the San Francisco Commercial Agency was the plaintiff, and one Margaret Hall the defendant.” <

*157 The statute on the subject, it is true, in the case of a garnishment requires that the sheriff in executing the writ shall not only leave a copy of the writ with the person owing the debt to the defendant, but also a notice that the debt owing by him to the defendant is attached in pursuance of such writ. But we think the complaint, in the absence of a special demurrer, states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action; and it was so held in the recent case of Midway Five Oil Co. v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Los Angeles, 25 Cal. App. 366, [143 Pac. 800].

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 P. 52, 27 Cal. App. 156, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/san-francisco-commercial-agency-v-mckeon-calctapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack