Case Name: Charles Conahan v. Thomas Cullin
Court: Cincinnati Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1858-01
Citations: 2 Disney (Ohio) 1
Docket Number: No. 6,421
Parties: Charles Conahan v. Thomas Cullin.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Superior Court of Cincinnati at special and general terms (Disney)
Volume: 2
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
Charles Conahan v. Thomas Cullin.
(No. 6,421.)
A person or corporation to be served as garnishee must be within the county in which the order of attachment is executed. It is not sufficient to serve the agent of a corporation, located elsewhere, but doing business by an agency in the county in which the action is brought.
Special Term. — T'his was an action to recover $411.49 upon a promissory note, and upon a judgment; an order of attachment had been issued and garnishees served with process.
A motion was made for a rule against the City Insurance Company, of Cincinnati, and the Washington Union Insurance Company, of Cleveland, to show cause why an attachment should not issue to compel answers to the interrogatories filed against them as garnishees. The order of attachment was directed to the sheriff’ of Hamilton county. The return was, “Served the City Insurance Company, of the city of Cincinnati, garnishee, by leaving a copy of this writ and notice with N. Gregory, secretary of said company, personally, and the Washington Union Insurance Company, of the city of Cleveland, garnishee, by leaving a copy of this writ and notice with George W. Copelan, agent for said company, personally.”
G. H. Hilton, for plaintiff.
Heynes, Todd & Lytle, for defendants.

Opinion:
Gholson, J.
A person or corporation to be served as garnishee must be within the county in which the order of attachment is executed. The provision for the service of garnishees does not, like that for the service of a summons, allow service on the agent of an insurance company located elsewhere, but doing business, by an agency, in the county in which the action is brought.
To authorize a service on the Cleveland company, an order of attachment should be issued to the county of Cuyahoga. The same reason which would allow an action to be brought against an insurance company in the county in which it has an agency, does not apply to the service of an order of attachment. The provisions of the code on the subject are different. Code, secs. 67, 200, 201.
The motion as to the first named company, granted; as to the second, overruled.