Case ID: ga_69/html/0758-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Crawford, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Armand & Russell vs. Burrum & Company.
    A judgment creditor garnished a firm of which his debtor was "member. The firm, -through the other member, answered that the debtor had nothing therein. On the trial of a traverse to the answer, the partner who made the answer testified that the debtor had no interest in the firm; that on the day of the service of the summons, he had overdrawn his interest one thousand dollars, and if the business had been wound up then, or at any time since, instead of his having anything due him, he would have owed one thousand dollars. Also, that pending,, the garnishment, the debtor had charged -to him fifty-six dollars and ninety cents, which he drew from money standing to the credit of the firm, though the firm had made no profits during that time, and nothing had accrued to his credit. There was no further testimony. 'The court charged the jury that “ the law treated this sum of money as firm assets belonging to Armand (the debtor), and accruing to his credit between the date of the service of garnishment and its answer; it is proper for a verdict to be given for this amount of fifty-six dollars and ninety cents, and the counsel can write it out and you can let your foreman sign it”:
    
      Held, that the question of the interest of the debtor in the firm was for the jury, and the charge of the court was error.
    December 12, 1882.
   Crawford, Justice.