Vanderhoof v. Holloway
Can I rely on this case?
Yes — no negative treatment found
- —
- —
Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.
Vanderhoof v. Holloway
Opinion of the Court
The disclosure of the garnishees was wholly insufficient to warrant a judgment against them. It was, in substance, that they were employed as auctioneers by defendant’s husband and agent to sell her household furniture at auction, at her house, they to receive as their commission 10 per cent, of the total amount of sales, the defendant’s husband to do the collecting. The garnishees sold the furniture under this contract, the aggregate amount of the salps being $490. All the money was collected by defendant’s husband from the purchasers, except the first $45, which was all the money that ever came into the hands of the garnishees, being less than the amount of their commission. After this $45 had been received by them, and while the auction sale was still in progress, the garnishee summons was served.
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Louis Vanderhoof and another v. Enoch Holloway and another, Garnishees of Caroline McAffee
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published