Adkins v. Poth

• Decision Date: 26 June 1926
• Docket Number: 207,199
• Parties: Adkins v. Poth et al
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

134 A. 444

286 Pa. 555

Adkins v. Poth et al

Nos. 199, 207

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June 26, 1926

Argued May 3, 1926

Appeals, Nos. 199 and 207, by Harry T. Stoddart, trustee under deed of trust of Claire M. P. Gulick, and by Julius Garfinkle & Co., from decrees of C.P. No. 2, Phila. Co March T., 1925, No. 2533, in case of Jesse C. Adkins, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Claire M. P. Gulick, v. Frederick J. Poth and Harry A. Poth, substituted trustees under a certain deed of trust dated April 30, 1904, et al. Affirmed.

Bill in equity to determine validity of certain attachments. Before GORDON, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Decree entered declaring attachments invalid. Harry T. Stoddart trustee, and Julius Garfinkel & Co., attaching creditors, appealed.

Error assigned was decree, quoting record.

The decree entered in each case is affirmed at costs of

Alfred N. Keim and Clarence E. Hall, of Orr & Hall, for appellants, Harry T. Stoddart, trustee, and Julius Garfinkle & Co. -- Since the passage of the late acts, there has never been a serious question under Pennsylvania practice as to the right to issue foreign attachment against a testamentary trustee or a trustee inter vivos.

Examples are to be found of attachments against trustees in Girard L.F. & T. Co. v. Chambers, 46 Pa. 485; Keyser v. Mitchell, 67 Pa. 473; Willis v. Curtze, 203 Pa. 111.

A trustee, inter vivos, who holds shares of stock in which a cestui que trust is interested upon termination of the trust, is subject to a writ of foreign attachment: Moys v. Union Trust Co., 276 Pa. 58.

A writ of foreign attachment issued against individual garnishees reaches all property of defendant held by such individuals, although the individual garnishees' specific capacities are not set forth in the writ: Gochenauer v. Hostetter, 18 Pa. 414.

It is not necessary for the writ of foreign attachment to disclose an intention to attach property of the garnishee in any specific capacity: Brunswick Co. v. Brown, 22 W.N.C. 43.

The attachment bound the property of defendant held by the garnishees as trustees under the inter vivos trust of 1904: Bentley v. Kaufman, 3 W.N.C. 352; Layman v. Beam, 6 Wharton 181.

R. W. Archbald, Jr., for appellee. -- None of the attachments summoned the corporation as garnishee, as required by Acts of 1836 and 1911: Christmas v. Biddle, 13 Pa. 222; Littell v. Gas & Water Co., 42 Pa. 500; Weaver v. R.R., 50 Pa. 314.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE FRAZER:

Frederick J. Poth, in his lifetime, executed a deed of trust concerning shares of capital stock of F.A. Poth & Sons, Inc., for the benefit of persons therein mentioned, the trust to run for a period of twenty years, after which time the shares of stock included in the trust were to be transferred by the trustee to the parties entitled thereto. The trust expired April 30, 1924. Two hundred shares of this stock belonged to Mrs. Claire M. P. Gulick. In addition to the stock, the trustee, on January 26, 1922, issued a check to the order of Mrs. Gulick for $12,000, representing dividends on the shares belonging to her. This check unendorsed by her was delivered to her attorneys who retained it in their possession and claimed a lien on the fund it represented for services rendered.

On March 21, 1924, Mrs. Gulick was adjudged a bankrupt and plaintiff appointed trustee. In the meantime, between June 23, 1922, and March 17, 1923, a number of attachments had issued against the stock; among these writs were two foreign attachments, one in favor of Harry T. Stoddart, trustee, and another in favor of Julius Garfinkle, trading as Julius Garfinkle & Company, who are appellants in the present proceedings. The trustee in bankruptcy filed the bill in these cases against the attaching creditors, joining, as parties defendant, the trustees under the trust deed above referred the trustees under the trust deed above referred to and the attorneys for Claire M. P. Gulick, averring the attachments were not binding against the stock in the hands of the trustees under the trust deed, nor against the check in the hands of the attorneys, and asking an order to transfer and deliver both the stock and the check to plaintiff, subject to whatever lien the attorneys might have on the funds for services.

The answer of Garfinkle averred the attachment issued by him was not for the purpose of seizing specifically the two hundred shares of stock referred to, but to secure possession of the interest of Mrs. Gulick under the trust. Stoddart answered to the same effect and further submitted to the court the legal question whether the check was the subject of attachment. No testimony was taken, nor was there dispute as to the facts in the bill and answer, the questions being whether, under the averments, the stock and check were bound by the attachment proceedings.

The description of the garnishees in the writ by Garfinkle is "individually and as trustees of the estate of Frederick J. Poth, deceased." Although defendants acted in that capacity, they did not hold the stock as such trustees, but as trustees under a trust deed, an entirely distinct and separate transaction, in no manner having to do with the estate of Frederick J. Poth. Had the garnishees been described generally without statement of the employment in which they acted, it might well have been argued the property in their hands was bound regardless of the capacity in which held. A person, however, may frequently have possession of property in different capacities, and if summoned as garnishee in a...