Maryland case law › Deckelman v. Keisner

Deckelman v. Keisner

152 Md. 471 (1927) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: DismissedPattison✓ Good law
HoldingHarry and Rebecca Keisner recovered a $500 judgment against Mollie Deckelman in the Baltimore City Court on April 30, 1924.

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. It appears from the record in this case that Harry Keisner and Rebecca Keisner, his wife, the appellees, on the 30th day of April, 1924, recovered a judgment in the Baltimore City Court against Mollie Deekelman, the appellant, for the sum of five hundred dollars, with interest and costs, upon which they caused to be issued out of that court an attachment by way of execution. The attachment was issued on the 13th day of March, 1926, and made returnable to the April return day, 1926, of said court. On the day of its issuance the writ was laid in the hands of Lewis W. Lake, and garnishee summoned.

On the third day of April, 1926, William Pinkney Whyte, Jr., entered his appearance for Mrs. Declcelman, the appellant, defendant below, and he on the same day filed a motion to quash the attachment, which was overruled on the 13th day of April, 1926. On the 23rd day of June, 1926, Lewis W. Lake, garnishee, filed his plea saying: “That at the time of the laying of the garnishment in his hands he was indebted to Mollie Deckelman in the sum of $206.50 by reason of the fact that the Court of Appeals of Maryland in the October Term, 1925, reversed a certain judgment in the case of Mollie Deckelman v. Lewis W. Lake, and put the costs of said case on the said Lewis W. Lake, which costs amount to $206.50, and $5.50 due the clerk of the Court of Appeals. That subsequent in point of time to the said garnishment, the said Mollie Declcelman had issued out of the Superior Court an execution from the Court of Appeals of Maryland on said judgment for costs, which execution upon order of the Superior Court was stayed because of the prior attachment heretofore mentioned upon 473 provision that the said Lewis W. Lake would deposit in said court the sum of $206.50, the amount involved, so that the said amount

This is a preview of Deckelman v. Keisner. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.