From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

GEE v. WARWICK

Superior Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1805
3 N.C. 354 (N.C. Super. 1805)

Opinion

(Fall Riding, 1805.)

A garnishee cannot be asked whether he does not owe as administrator, but he may be as to whether he does not owe as heir or devisee.

ATTACHMENT for a debt, and Mr. Hamlin was summoned as a garnishee. It was now objected that he ought not to be asked whether he owed as the executor of his father or grandfather.

Haywood and Plummer, for the plaintiffs, forebore any such question; but they asked him whether he did not owe as heir to his father or grandfather, and he answered; and his counsel, Mr. Brown, (355) did not object to the question; and he admitted a bond due from his grandfather, and that he had assets from him, not as heir, but as devisee.


He cannot be interrogated in that character, unless the Court can be convinced by further argument that the case of Welch v. Gurley, ante, 334, decided not long since at Wilmington, is not law.


NOTE. — See Welch v. Gurley, ante, 334.

Cited: Russell v. Hinton, 5 N.C. 473.


Summaries of

GEE v. WARWICK

Superior Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1805
3 N.C. 354 (N.C. Super. 1805)
Case details for

GEE v. WARWICK

Case Details

Full title:GEE v. WARWICK CO

Court:Superior Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jan 1, 1805

Citations

3 N.C. 354 (N.C. Super. 1805)

Citing Cases

Tate v. Morehead

See Rev. Code chap. 7, sec. 9. Of course no judgment can be had against the administrator which could not…