Palmer v. McClelland

5 Citing cases

  1. Goldsmith v. William S. Bergman Associates

    708 A.2d 640 (D.C. 1998)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that "[t]he purpose of the writ is to prevent the garnishee from prematurely disposing of any assets belonging to the judgment debtor that come into the garnishee's hands at any time prior to the resolution of the garnishment proceeding"

    When the writ is quashed by the trial court the lien is dissolved and the garnishee may transfer the property that had been subject to the garnishment. See Palmer v. McClelland, 123 A.2d 357 (D.C. 1956). However, where an appeal has been filed from the trial court's ruling quashing the attachment, "'pending the appeal the garnishee [is] bound to retain the money in his hands.'"

  2. Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran

    67 F.4th 428 (D.C. Cir. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    As the garnishee is one of its agencies, the United States would be liable "for the . . . credits admitted or found." Id. ยง 16-556(a); see also Palmer v. McClelland, 123 A.2d 357, 357 (D.C. 1956). The appellants are thus seeking monetary relief against the United States, but "[t]he judiciary may not impose monetary relief against the United States without its consent."

  3. Abdel-Kafi v. Citicorp Mortg. Inc.

    772 A.2d 802 (D.C. 2001)   Cited 2 times
    Finding the lender's notice of foreclosure defective because the lender sent it to the property address rather than to the address provided in the plaintiff's change of address notice, where no argument was made that actual notice occurred

    This is not a case where the relief sought by the plaintiff in the trial court or on appeal necessarily must operate against an absent entity not joined by the plaintiff. Cf, e.g., Capital City Corp. v. Johnson, 646 A.2d 325, 329 (D.C. 1994) (plaintiff suit to set aside foreclosure against absent purchaser); Palmer v. McClelland, 123 A.2d 357 (D.C. 1956) (judgment of condemnation by attaching creditor against absent garnishee). On the contrary, the Lender as plaintiff in the case before us sought simply to obtain possession of the property from the defendant, and our ruling goes no further than the issue of their possessory rights to the property vis-a-vis each other.

  4. Butler v. Butler

    219 Va. 164 (Va. 1978)   Cited 13 times

    Clearly, the garnishee is a necessary party to this appeal. Palmer v. McClelland, 123 A.2d 357 (D.C. Mun. App. 1956). Kansas has a statutory equivalent of the Virginia rule that garnishment is an independent suit in which the garnishee is a party defendant.

  5. Royal Credit Co. v. Wabash

    162 A.2d 493 (D.C. 1960)

    It thus may be argued that this appeal is moot because a reversal of the trial court's order would be of no benefit to appellant. See Palmer v. McClelland, D.C.Mun.App., 123 A.2d 357. We are also told that appellee has made no instalment payments and therefore the stay of execution may be readily set aside.