Court Opinion

ID: 9831164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:52:14.415502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:32.000198
License: Public Domain

WILUSON, C. J.
This case in its material facts is like Mayfield Company et al. v. Harlan & Harlan, 184 S. W. 313, this day decided by this court, except that there: (1) The amount of the debt in favor of appellee against M. T. Sheets was $133.83; (2) the writs of garnishment were served upon Mayfield Company and Nunnellee before the former sold the Sheets stock of goods to the latter, and at a time when, according to a finding of the court, the goods were in the joint possession of May-field Company and Nunnellee; and (3) the judgment directed them to deliver to the sheriff or constable holding an execution issued on the judgment in appellee’s favor against Sheets the effects belonging_ to him and in their possession when the writs were served, or so much of same as were necessary to satisfy such execution. The finding that the goods were in the joint possession of Mayfield Company and Nun-nellee at the time the writs of garnishment were served upon them respectively is attacked, by anpellants as without support in the testimony. But the finding was warranted by evidence which it appears from the record appellants in open court agreed- the coui’t should consider in determining the facts of the case. Por reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Hodges disposing of the Harlan Case, the judgment is believed to be without error, and therefore it is affirmed.