Bassi v. Bassi
| Decision Date | 13 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24,837 |
| Citation | 205 N.W. 947,165 Minn. 100 |
| Parties | GIOVANNI BASSI v. TONY BASSI; BELT AUTOMOBILE INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, GARNISHEE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover for personal injuries. At the conclusion of the garnishee disclosure the court, Bechhoefer, J., discharged the jury and ordered judgment in favor of the garnishee. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment. Affirmed.
Garnishee automobile insurance company, discharged by insured's violation of conditions of policy.
1. The evidence for respondent, summarized in the opinion, sustains the finding that defendant violated the conditions of the policy of public liability automobile insurance, issued to him by the garnishee, to such an extent as to discharge the latter.
No right to jury trial of issue between judgment creditor and garnishee.
2. The issue between a judgment creditor and a garnishee, as to whether the latter is under any liability to the judgment debtor which can be subject to garnishment, arises under a statutory proceeding which is equitable in nature. In consequence, there is no constitutional right to trial by jury.
1. See Motor Vehicles, 28 Cyc. p. 50 (Anno).
2. See Garnishment, 28 C.J. p. 316, § 475.
Fred Ossanna, Jay W. Smith & G. E. McCune, for appellant.
Orr Stark & Kidder, for respondent garnishee.
Action for personal injuries wherein, judgment for plaintiff remaining unsatisfied, the plaintiff garnisheed the Belt Automobile Indemnity Association, the insurer of defendant under a policy of public liability automobile insurance. On the issue joined between plaintiff and the garnishee, the latter defended on the ground that it had been discharged from liability because of defendant's violation of the contract of insurance by refusing to give the garnishee information and to co-operate with it in the defense. In fact, the garnishee charges that defendant, conspiring with plaintiff, attempted to fix liability upon it notwithstanding that the accident in question was such as not to result in such liability. Upon the issues so joined between plaintiff and garnishee, there was a trial which began before a jury. However, the learned trial judge, at the conclusion of the trial, discharged the jury and decided the case in favor of the garnishee. Plaintiff appeals from the resulting judgment.
Plaintiff and defendant are brothers. Plaintiff and two others were riding with defendant in his automobile at the time of the accident which resulted in the injury to plaintiff out of which this action arose. Mr. Bellotti, one of the other passengers, was also injured. The original statements made to the garnishee's adjuster by both plaintiff and defendant were unequivocally to the effect that, without any negligence on the part of the defendant, his automobile was run into from behind by another machine. The garnishee was not advised otherwise until, upon the trial of the main action, the defense of which the garnishee assumed and conducted pursuant to its contract, the evidence for plaintiff was that defendant was racing his car with another and was forced into the ditch, his negligence being thereby put beyond controversy. For the defense, when it was proposed to call defendant himself, counsel for the garnishee were assured that his testimony would not follow at all the story of the accident theretofore given by him to the garnishee and up to that moment maintained, but on the contrary would corroborate that of plaintiff. Naturally and for good reason, he was not put upon the stand. His testimony would have but made more certain the verdict against defendant.
There is ample evidence to...
To continue reading
Request your trial