Coulters v. Sand Man, Inc.
| Citation | 165 A. 220 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 7218.,7218. |
| Parties | COULTERS v. THE SAND MAN, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Hugh B. Baker, Presiding Justice.
Action by Carrie B. Coulters against The Sand Man, Incorporated, and another, in which the J. W. Bishop Company was made garnishee, and filed its affidavit stating that it had in its possession certain personalty belonging to defendant named, subject to an assignment from defendant named to the Colonial Finance Corporation. Decision having been given for plaintiff, the garnishee was charged and judgment immediately entered against defendant named, after which the Colonial Finance Corporation filed a motion to vacate the order charging the garnishee and the garnishee filed a motion to vacate the judgment. Both motions were denied and bills of exceptions of the garnishee and of the Colonial Finance Corporation were allowed. Motions by plaintiff to dismiss the bills of exceptions.
Motion granted as to the bill of the Colonial Finance Corporation, and denied as to the bill of the garnishee.
Frank H. Wildes, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Ralph M. Greenlaw, of Providence, for garnishee.
In the above-entitled action the J. W. Bishop Company, a corporation, was garnisheed in an action of assumpsit. The garnishee duly filed its affidavit (Pub. Laws 1930, chap. 1608), wherein it stated that there was in the hands and possession of the J. W. Bishop Company of the personal estate belonging to the defendant The Sand Man, Inc., more than the ad damnum of the writ, subject, however, to an assignment from The Sand Man, Inc., to the Colonial Finance Corporation, a Rhode Island corporation, a copy of which assignment was served upon the garnishee prior to the time of attaching the personal estate of the defendant The Sand Man, Inc.; said copy being made a part of this affidavit. (Then follows a copy of the assignment and a statement of other attachments.) The affidavit concludes with a prayer that the court determine whether or not the garnishee is chargeable.
The action was answered and assigned for trial. On the day of the trial the action against one defendant, Minutella, was discontinued, and the other defendant, The Sand Man, Inc., was called and defaulted. The action against it was continued for proof of damages to May 31, 1932, when, said proof having been made, decision was given for the plaintiff for the sum of $2,414.40 and costs, the garnishee was charged for that amount, and judgment against the defendant was at once entered. After the execution was served, the Colonial Finance Corporation on June 3 secured a stay of the execution and filed a motion alleging its interest as claimant to the funds garnisheed and praying that the order charging the garnishee be vacated. The same day the garnishee filed a motion to vacate the judgment, alleging as reason therefor a prior assignment to the Colonial Finance Corporation.
After a hearing both motions to vacate the judgment were denied. On June 7, and within seven days after notice of the decision of May 31, the J. W. Bishop Company took exception to said decision. The time for filing the bill of exceptions and transcript was fixed at July 15, on which day the bill and transcript were allowed. The Colonial Finance Corporation filed its exception and notice of intention to prosecute a bill of exceptions July 20, and its bill of exceptions was allowed October 7.
The ground of the exception of the Colonial Finance Corporation is that the court erred in denying its motion to vacate the judgment and to discharge the garnishee, and of the J. W. Bishop Company that "the court erred in its decision charging it as garnishee.
Plaintiff filed motions to dismiss these bills of exceptions for the reasons that each exception was taken after the entry of final judgment and the issuance of execution. These motions raise the questions now in issue.
This was an answered case which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richard v. Industrial Trust Co., 9726
...she was not bound to act upon defendant's notices. For the same reason she could not have appealed from that judgment. Coulters v. Sand Man, Inc., 53 R.I. 151, 165 A. 220. However, defendant could have appealed or could have asked the court to summon in plaintiff as a party to the proceedin......
-
Seaporcel Metals, Inc. v. Ciccone
...a hearing on December 1 was clearly premature since on December 1 it could not be known that plaintiff would prevail. Coulters v. Sand Man, Inc., 53 R.I. 151, 165 A. 220. There was also a motion filed by the garnishee on December 3, 1959 which stated that there were prior attachments of fun......
- George E. Merewether, Inc. v. Equi
-
Coulters v. Sand Man, Inc., 7218.
...it as garnishee. The material facts in this case up to a certain point are set forth in detail in the case of Coulters v. Sand Man, Inc. et al, 53 R. I. 151, 165 A. 220. We deem it necessary, however, to briefly state certain of those facts together with others not before the court at that ......