South Highlands Infirmary v. Imperial Laundry Co.
This text of 149 So. 106 (South Highlands Infirmary v. Imperial Laundry Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellant, alleging, etc., that it held a judgment in which there was no waiver, etc., of exemptions, etc., against one E. H. Maddox, procured a writ of garnishment to be-issued and served on appellee, etc. Code 1923, c. 298.
No notice of this \yrit of garnishment was ever served upon the defendant E. H. Maddox (Code 1923,. § 8056), who is shown to have been a resident of the state at the time of the issuance and service of said garnishment writ, and, for aught appearing, presumably, ever since (22 C. J. 86).
Because of the failure to serve notice upon said defendant, the 'judgment of the lower court in favor of garnishee appellee must he affirmed, regardless of the legal merit, vel non, of the contentions advanced by the respective parties to this appeal. Hurt et al. v. Knox, 220 Ala. 448, 126 So. 110. And it is so ordered.
Affirmed. -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
149 So. 106, 25 Ala. App. 461, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-highlands-infirmary-v-imperial-laundry-co-alactapp-1933.