Bank of Monroe v. Ouachita Valley Bank

• Decision Date: 15 November 1909
• Docket Number: 17,484
• Citation: 124 La. 798,50 So. 718
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: BANK OF MONROE v. OUACHITA VALLEY BANK et al

50 So. 718

124 La. 798

BANK OF MONROE v. OUACHITA VALLEY BANK et al

No. 17,484

Supreme Court of Louisiana

November 15, 1909

Appeal from Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita; J. P Madison, Judge.

Action by the Bank of Monroe against E. C. Drew Investment Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and the bank brings garnishment proceedings against the Ouachita Valley Bank and others. Judgment for the garnishee bank, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Stubbs Russell & Theus, for appellant. Allan Sholars, for appellee Ouachita Valley Bank.

OPINION

MONROE J.

Statement of the Case.

The petition in this case (which, upon the docket of the district court, appears to bear the number 6,686) alleges: That, in the suit No. 6,496, plaintiff obtained judgment against E. C Drew Investment Company, E. C. Drew, and others for $ 28,941.99; that it has caused a writ of fieri facias to issue, which is in the hands of the sheriff; that it believes that the Ouachita Valley Bank, and certain individuals, who are named, have property belonging to the judgment debtor, E. C. Drew, or are indebted to him; that stock of the defendant bank has been issued in the names of said individuals, which was paid for by Drew; that it believes that such stock is in the possession of H. L. Gregg, president of said bank, and of G. M. Crook, its cashier, and fears that it will be delivered to Drew during the pendency of the suit. Wherefore it prays that the Ouachita Valley Bank and the individuals named be cited to answer the interrogatories annexed to the petition, and that a writ of injunction "issue to the said Ouachita Valley Bank, H. L. Gregg, and Green M. Crook, enjoining * * * them and each of them from delivering to the said E. C. Drew any certificates of stock, or money or other property, now in its possession, belonging to the said E. C. Drew or issued in his name or the names of the above-named persons made garnishees." There were two sets of interrogatories annexed to the petition. One set, bearing the legend, "Interrogatories to be answered by all of said garnishees," relate to stock of the Ouachita Bank, supposed to have been issued to the individuals named, and which, it was conceded in the argument, were not intended to be answered by the bank. The other set bear the legend, "Interrogatories especially to be answered by H. L. Gregg, individually and as president, and Green M. Crook, individually and as cashier." Writs of injunction, as prayed for, bearing the title and number (in the district court) of this suit, were served on the Ouachita Valley Bank and on H. L. Gregg and G. M. Crook. A notice of seizure was also served on the bank having the same title and number, and otherwise reading as follows:

"To Ouachita Valley Bank: You will please take notice that, by virtue of a writ of fi. fa. issued by the Honorable Sixth district court, in and for the parish of Ouachita, and to me directed, in the above-entitled suit, I have seized and taken in my possession the following described property, to wit: All property of every nature and kind in your possession or under your control belonging to E. C. Drew, including any and all indebtedness to him.

"This 19th day of Aug. 1909."

"[Signed] T. A. Grant, Dy. Sheriff."

"And you are further notified to be at my office, in the city of Monroe, on Saturday, the day of , 190 , at 9 o'clock, to appoint an appraiser and appraise said property."

Another notice was served, also bearing the title and number of this proceeding, and otherwise reading, in part, as follows:

"To Ouachita Valley Bank, Garnishee:

"You are hereby cited to declare, on oath, what property, belonging to the defendant in this case, you have in your possession, or in what sum you are indebted to said defendant, and also to answer * * * the interrogatories annexed to the petition of which a copy accompanies this citation," etc.

The return on the back of this notice (signed by the deputy sheriff) reads:

"Received this citation, together with a certified copy of same and a certified copy of the original petition, order, and interrogatories, in office, on the 18th day of August, 1908, and on the 18th day of August, 1908, I served notice of the seizure on the Ouachita Valley Bank by handing said notice of seizure to H. L. Gregg, president of said bank."

All of the individuals named as garnishees appear to have answered and to have been discharged. The Ouachita Valley Bank made no answer, and the minutes of the court of September 23, 1908, show the entry:

"Interrogatories on facts and articles taken as confessed, as against the Ouachita Valley Bank, and defendant bank excepts to ruling, on oral motion."

On the following day the bank moved to vacate the order of September 23d on the grounds: That the first set of interrogatories were not intended to be answered by it, and that nothing could result if they were taken for confessed. That the second set were not addressed to it, but were addressed to "H. L. Gregg, individually and as president; and to G M. Crook, individually and as cashier." That, if it should be considered that interrogatories so addressed were propounded to the bank, then it should be held that the answers, made by the parties named, individually and officially, are the answers of the bank. And that there was no judgment in the suit in which the garnishment was attempted. The motion so made was sustained by judgment rendered September 29th, and the judgment taking the answers for confessed was set aside; but the minutes of October 1st show that the judge "on objection of counsel for defendant bank" (meaning, as we take it, the Bank of Monroe, defendant in the rule in which the judgment had been rendered), refused to sign the judgment. On the same day (October 1st) the defendant bank moved to dissolve the injunction which had been issued against it, on the grounds: That the garnishment proceeding was illegal and ineffective and had been dismissed; that the attempted seizure was illegal, because it purported to have been made under a writ of fi. fa. in the suit of Bank of Monroe v. Ouachita Valley Bank et. al., when, in fact, there was no judgment rendered or writ issued in that case. On December 17th there was judgment dissolving the injunction, as prayed for, and also dismissing plaintiff's suit, which judgment was signed on the date...