Campbell v. Simpkins

• Decision Date: 20 November 1894
• Citation: 10 Wash. 160,38 P. 1039
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. SIMPKINS ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

38 P. 1039

10 Wash. 160

CAMPBELL v. SIMPKINS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 20, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county.

Action by William Campbell against Charles Simpkins. Garnishment proceedings were instituted against A. Sadlier, and from a judgment against the garnishee he appeals. Reversed.

John M. Boyle, for appellant.

Sharpstein & Blattner, for respondent.

STILES J.

Respondent having commenced a suit against one Simpkins for the collection of a debt of $137.26, caused garnishment proceedings to be instituted against the appellant, alleging therein that appellant had in his possession a stock of wall paper, paints, and oils, of the value of $1,000, the property of Simpkins. The case turned on the question whether these goods were sold to appellant in payment of a pre-existing debt due upon a promissory note given by Simpkins to him for a loan of money, whether the transfer was a mere cover intended to prevent Simpkins' creditors from collecting their claims, or whether the value of the goods transferred was so grossly in excess of the debt due to appellant as to make the transaction a fraud upon Simpkins' creditors. There was no claim that appellant owed Simpkins any money. The court instructed the jury that if they found that appellant's debt was bona fide, that he knew Simpkins to be indebted to other parties, and that the value of the property transferred was palpably in excess of appellant's debt, they should find for the respondent for the excess. And it also charged that if the transfer was merely in trust for Simpkins, the transaction was void, and the finding should be for respondent. In either case the recovery was limited to $137.26,-the amount of respondent's claim. The jury found for the respondent in the sum of $50.

It seems to us clear that the case was submitted to the jury upon an incorrect theory of the law. Under the statute (Laws 1893, c. 56), the process of garnishment lies in but two instances, viz. where the garnishee is indebted to the principal defendant, and where he has in his possession personal property belonging to the principal debtor which is subject to execution. It is only where there is a debt due from the garnishee that a money judgment can be entered as the result of the proceeding. Where property subject to execution is found in the possession of the garnishee, the only order which the court makes is a decree that the...