Norris v. Burgoyne
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Smith v. Crocker First National Bank (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
- Howard v. Quinn (Mont. 1876)
- Street v. Reingke (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
- Gardner v. Pioneer-Pacific Worsted Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
- Steineck v. Haas-Baruch Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
- Davis v. Claxton (Mont. 1928)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.