Sensheimer v. Huttenbauer

Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati

Sensheimer v. Huttenbauer

2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 56

DecidedJanuary 15, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 56 (Sensheimer v. Huttenbauer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sensheimer v. Huttenbauer, 2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 56 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Hagans, J.

This action is founded on certain contracts and promissory notes. An attachment was sued out, and Messrs. Hoffmann Bros, served as garnishees. They answer that they neither have any property belonging to the defendant, nor owe him any money. It was stated that defendant was the holder of the promissory note of Hoffmann Bros., and that he alleged that before service of process on them it had been transferred to one Joseph Billingheimer.

The plaintiff now moves to make Billingheimer a party [57]*57defendant, and alleges that Billingheimer does not own the note, but that it still belongs to defendant.

The plaintiff is evidently not satisfied with the answer of the garnishee. Section 218 of the Code provides a remedy for him, by way of action in his own name as in other cases. And it can.make no difference that the plaintiff seeks to make Billingheimer the alleged owner of the note a party, or that Billingheimer should himself ask to be made a party defendant. * In neither case ought the motion to be granted. Vallette v. Kentucky Trust Co. Bank, 2 Handy, 1; Harrison v. King, 9 Ohio St. 388.

Motion overruled.

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

Hagans, J.

This action is founded on certain contracts and promissory notes. An attachment was sued out, and Messrs. Hoffmann Bros, served as garnishees. They answer that they neither have any property belonging to the defendant, nor owe him any money. It was stated that defendant was the holder of the promissory note of Hoffmann Bros., and that he alleged that before service of process on them it had been transferred to one Joseph Billingheimer.

The plaintiff now moves to make Billingheimer a party [57]*57defendant, and alleges that Billingheimer does not own the note, but that it still belongs to defendant.

The plaintiff is evidently not satisfied with the answer of the garnishee. Section 218 of the Code provides a remedy for him, by way of action in his own name as in other cases. And it can.make no difference that the plaintiff seeks to make Billingheimer the alleged owner of the note a party, or that Billingheimer should himself ask to be made a party defendant. * In neither case ought the motion to be granted. Vallette v. Kentucky Trust Co. Bank, 2 Handy, 1; Harrison v. King, 9 Ohio St. 388.

Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sensheimer-v-huttenbauer-ohsuperctcinci-1871.