Clark v. Bert

• Decision Date: 01 October 1895
• Docket Number: 67
• Citation: 42 P. 733,2 Kan.App. 407
• Parties: DANIEL S. CLARK v. M. H. BERT et al
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

42 P. 733

2 Kan.App. 407

DANIEL S. CLARK v. M. H. BERT et al

No. 67

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Northern Department, Central Division

October 1, 1895

Opinion Filed December 2, 1895.

MEMORANDUM.--Error from Dickinson district court; M. B NICHOLSON, judge. Action brought by Daniel S. Clark against Michael H. Bert, B. M. Wallace, and C. H. Merrill, copartners as The Abilene Bridge Company, to subject a county warrant in the hands of defendant Bert, as county clerk, to the payment of a judgment obtained by plaintiff against said bridge company. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings the case here. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

John H Mahan, for plaintiff in error.

B. C. Cranston, for defendants in error.

GRAVER J. All the Judges concurring.

OPINION

GARVER, J.:

The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, commenced an action under section 481 of the code, for the purpose of subjecting to the payment of a judgment which he had obtained against the Abilene Bridge Company, a Dickinson county warrant drawn in favor of the bridge company and in the hands of M. H. Bert, as county clerk of that county. In his petition the plaintiff alleged the recovery of a judgment before a justice of the peace against said bridge company; the issuing of an execution, and the return thereof unsatisfied for the want of personal property on which to levy the same; the issuing of a garnishment summons to the said M. H. Bert and his answer thereto, before the justice, admitting the holding by him, as county clerk, of a county warrant of the value of $ 126, drawn by him, as county clerk of Dickinson county, on the treasurer of said county, payable to the order of the Abilene Bridge Company. Plaintiff further alleged, that said bridge company was wholly insolvent, and that it had no other property out of which the plaintiff could make his judgment. The plaintiff asked that a receiver be appointed to take possession of said county warrant, and collect and apply the same to the payment of said judgment. Issues were joined upon this petition by answers filed by the Abilene Bridge Company, as well as by the county clerk, setting up as defenses a general denial, and further alleging that the money due on the warrant did not belong to the Abilene Bridge Company, but had, prior to the commencement of the action, been assigned and transferred to other parties. A trial was had by the court and judgment rendered for the defendants, the court assigning as the reason therefor "that the county warrant mentioned in the plaintiff's petition is not such property as is liable to be garnished or taken to be applied to the payment of the plaintiff's judgment."

We think the decision and judgment of the trial court must be sustained, whatever may be the views of this court as to the reasons assigned therefor. A decision which the record shows is the only proper one that could have been made will not be disturbed by an appellate court simply because it may not agree with the particular reason assigned by the trial court for its conclusions. No satisfactory reason has been suggested why the section of the statute under which...