Jackson v. Justices of Harrison County
Opinion of the Court
THE plaintiff obtained from a Justice of the Peace for Harrison county, on the 2d October, 1812, an attachment returnable to the following October court, against the effects of one Alexander Morrison, alias Porter, an absconding debtor, who was declared by the said Jackson to be indebted to him ⅛ the sum of tour hundred dollars. The sheriff of Harrison county to whom the attachment was directed, made a return on the attachment to this effect: that he found one horse in Hampshire county, which was the property of the defendant, at Solomon Parks, who refused to deliver the horse to him, and said he had bought the horse of the defendant, and put the same under lock, so that he could not take kin: away: be therefore summoned Parks as garnishee to appear in Harrison county on tie first day of October court, on behalf of the plaintiff, to declare what property of defendant’s was in his hands. He also returned that he had attached one sorrel mare in the fields of John G. Jackson, aad had her to dispose of as the court might direct,
At the December court 1812, held for the county of
At the superior court of law for Harrison county held in May 1813, the plaintiff moved the court to award a rule for a mandamus to the justices of the said county, commanding them to issue further process to compel the appearance of Solomon Parks a garnishee in the said attachment, which motion for novelty and difficulty was adjourned to the general court for its advice on the following points: 1st. Whether the county court hath legal authority to issue process to another county, to compel the appearance of a person summoned as a garnishee on attachment. 2d. Whether the county court ought to be compelled to award such process in this case.
■ The general court, consisting of judges Holmes, Sem-ple, and Randolph, on the 12th of June, 1813, declined giving an opinion on the first question because it was “ stated so generally, as not particularly to refer to the « record.” As to the second question they ordered it to be certified to the superior court “ that the county court « ought not to be compelled to award the pluries attach- “ meat against the garnishee.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.