Farmers Bank v. Johnson
Farmers Bank v. Johnson
Opinion of the Court
Cooper was garnished under the writ of attachment as a. supposed debtor to Johnson, the attachment defendant. He answered, as garnishee, that, as a purchaser of real estate under contract from Johnson, he was owing her $1,000; that, on the other hand, she was owing .him on a promissory note the sum of about fááO, which he claimed as a just offset against the $1,000 otherwise due from him. It appeared, also, from his answer that, though the note held by him was, on its face, not yet due, it had been agreed by the maker that, in the event of the sale of the real estate purchased by him, the note should become due forthwith, and should be paid out of the proceeds of the real estate. To this answer of the garnishee, the plaintiff de
We pass upon the'merits of the appeal with some hesitancy, because of the doubtful sufficiency of the abstract to confer appellate jurisdiction upon us. There is nothing in the abstract, except the title of the case, which advises us which party has appealed, or that any party has appealed. Nor is the abstract signed by any party or attorney. We have had to draw upon the briefs of counsel for the actual state of the record.
We find no error, and the judgment entered below is— Affvrmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.