Gladden v. Columbiana Sav. Bank

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Darby

    226 B.R. 126 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 1998)   Cited 5 times

    Under Alabama law, a hypothetical judicial lien creditor would not prevail over the interests of the minor children in the PACT contracts. See Sloss v. Glaze, 231 Ala. 234, 164 So. 51 (Ala. 1935); Gladden v. Columbiana Sav. Bank, 29 Ala. App. 97, 193 So. 185 (Ala.Ct.App. 1939); First Nat'l Bank v. T.J. Perry Son, 25 Ala. App. 6, 140 So. 614 (Ala.Ct.App. 1931). "An express trust beneficiary clearly has priority to trust assets over a judicial lienholder or execution creditor."

  2. Ginsberg v. Goldstein

    404 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 26 times
    Noting that "[f]or the purposes of garnishment a bank deposit prima facie belongs to the person in whose name it stands."

    Accord, 6 Am.Jur.2d Attachment and Garnishment § 162 (1963), and cases cited. In at least one instance, Gladden v. Columbiana Savings Bank, 29 Ala. App. 97, 193 So. 185 (1939), cert. denied, 238 Ala. 648, 193 So. 187 (1939), this doctrine has been applied to recognize a claim, like Felice's, of the wife of the debtor to a general account standing in his name. At 193 So. 185, 186, the court held

  3. State Nat. Bank of Decatur at Oneonta v. Towns

    62 So. 2d 606 (Ala. Crim. App. 1953)   Cited 8 times

    7 Am.Jur., supra; Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 350. Generally, a claim acquired by garnishee against debtor after service of garnishment proceedings cannot be made available as a set off. Warfield v. Campbell, 38 Ala. 527, 82 Am.Dec. 724. Relative rights of plaintiff and garnishee depend on status existing when writ of garnishment is served. Gladden v. Columbiana Savings Bank, 29 Ala. App. 97, 193 So. 185; Id., 238 Ala. 648, 193 So. 187. Service of garnishment creates lien on debt, demand or property to be subjected. Dishman v. Griffis, 198 Ala. 664, 76 So. 966. Garnishment lien attaches from service of writ and continues to date of garnishee's oral answer. First Nat'l Bank v. Standard Chem. Co., 226 Ala. 509, 147 So. 682; Standard San. Mfg. Co. v. Benson Hdw. Co., 228 Ala. 594, 154 So. 560; Piper Ice Cream Co. v. Walker Co., 245 Ala. 281, 16 So.2d 798; Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 999. Where defendant at time of garnishment had balance on deposit but was indebted to bank on notes not due, bank cannot set off indebtedness against claim of plaintiff.