TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Levine's Loan Office, Inc. v. Starke

Levine's Loan Office, Inc., and Rosa Levine v. Starke

Levine's Loan Office, Inc. v. Starke, 124 S.E. 206 (Va. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Virginia · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 18, 1924
Citations
124 S.E. 206139 Va. 7211924 Va. LEXIS 145

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

1. The motion for a writ of certiorari, made by the-defendant in error, is resisted by the plaintiff in error upon the ground that the original execution sought to be brought up as a part of the record is not in fact a part of the record of this case in the trial court, and therefore is not •within the scope of a writ of the character prayed for.

*722 2. The proceedings, out of which the appeal in this case arose, rested upon a garnishee process issued under the execution in question, and the defendant in error contends that the execution is necessarily a part of the record.

3. The plaintiff in error assigns, as one of the errors upon which he relies, that the court below had no jurisdiction to proceed against the garnishee, for the reason that among the agreed facts is a statement that the execution was issued at a date subsequent to the date upon which the clerk signed the garnishee process.

4. The clerk, in attesting the garnishee process, certifies in substance that it was issued by him under an execution then outstanding.

Under these circumstances, the court is of opinion that it should have before it the execution, which formed the basis of the proceedings, in order, in any event, to properly pass upon the question of jurisdiction raised by the plaintiff in error, and that the ascertainment of the true rights of the parties will be forwarded by allowing the writ of certiorari as prayed for to be issued.

The writ of certiorari is accordingly allowed.

Certiorari allowed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list