Case ID: colo_74/html/0128-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Denison", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 10,726.
    The Donald Company v. Dubinsky.
    Decided October 1, 1923.
    Garnishment proceedings under attachment. Garnishee discharged.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      On Application for Supersedeas.
    
    1. Attachment — Garnishment. The statute permits attachment only in aid of actions upon contract. In garnishment proceedings under writ of attachment in aid of an action in tort, it is held that the garnishee was properly discharged.
    
      
      Error to the County Court of the City and County of Denver, Hon. Jay H. Bouton, Judge.
    
    Mr. Frank L. Hays, for plaintiff in error.
    Mr. J. W. Kelley, Messrs. Simpson & Seaman, for defendant in error.
    Mr. Fred P. Cranston, Amicus Curiæ.
    
      Department Two.
    
   Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error brought suit against defendant in error for damages for deceit, and garnished a bank by attachment. On joint motion of the defendant and the garnishee the court discharged the garnishee. The plaintiff brings error and moves for supersedeas.

The discharge of the garnishee was right because the action was in tort and the statute permits attachment only in aid of actions upon contract. Code 1921, § 97.

Supersedeas denied and judgment affirmed.

Mr.'Chief Justice Teller and Mr. Justice Sheafor concur.