Briggs v. Block

• Decision Date: 31 March 1853
• Citation: 18 Mo. 281
• Parties: BRIGGS, Respondent, v. BLOCK, GARNISHEE OF ROBBINS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

18 Mo. 281

BRIGGS, Respondent,

v.BLOCK, GARNISHEE OF ROBBINS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1853.

1. It is not necessary that the name of every person summoned as garnishee in an attachment suit should be inserted in the writ.

2. The Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by inferior courts in the matter of permitting allegations and interrogatories to garnishees to be filed after the regular time has elapsed, but before the end of the term.

3. The denial of the answer of a garnishee need not be sworn to.

4. A. shipped a quantity of gold dust to B., with directions to sell it, and pay the proceeds to C., a creditor of A. It did not appear that C. had assented to this arrangement, or that he was advised of it. Before B. paid the money to C. he was summoned as garnishee in an attachment suit against A. Held, the money still remained the property of A. and was subject to the attachment.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

Briggs sued George C. Robbins by attachment, and Emanuel Block was summoned as garnishee. The name of Block was not inserted in the writ to the sheriff, as a party to be summoned as garnishee. After the lapse of the first week of the return term, no allegations and interrogatories having been filed, Block moved to be discharged. Pending this motion, allegations and interrogatories were allowed to be filed, and the motion was overruled. Block, the garnishee, answered that he was not indebted to the defendant, nor did he have in his hands any property, money or effects of the defendant, unless it should be adjudged otherwise on the following facts: Several weeks before the garnishment, Robbins, being up the Missouri river, sent the garnishee a parcel of gold dust, worth four hundred dollars, with orders to sell it and pay the money to Mr. Berthelet, of Arkansas, to whom he (Robbins) owed five hundred dollars; that the garnishee sold the gold dust, and had the money ready to pay Berthelet, on demand, but he did not arrive in St. Louis and demand the money, until a few days after the garnishment.

The reply to this answer was not verified by affidavit, nor did it deny the facts stated in the answer, but alleged that, admitting them, still the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the garnishee. The court gave judgment for the plaintiff.

E. & B. Bates, for appellant.

Todd & Krum, for respondent, as to the point that the money was still the property of Robbins, and subject to the attachment, cited 1 Denio, 49; 9 East, 49; 2 Bing. 7; 18 J. R. 363; 7 Mo. 62.

RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

From the above statement of facts though several minor questions have been raised, yet there are but one or two which must settle this controversy between the parties.

1. There is no necessity to have the name of every person summoned as garnishee inserted in the writ. “All persons shall be summoned as garnishees who are named as such in the writ, and such others as the officer shall find in the possession of goods, money or effects of the defendant, not actually seized by the officer, and debtors of the defendant, and also such as the plaintiff or his attorney shall direct.” (R. C. 1845, tit. Attachment, article 1, sec. 13.) The objection, therefore, that the garnishee's name, Block, was not in the writ, is untenable. The sheriff had the power...