Crone v. Braun

• Decision Date: 14 December 1876
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: THEODORE CRONE <I>vs.</I> GEORGE BRAUN and garnishee and claimant.

Page 239

23 Minn. 239

THEODORE CRONE vs. GEORGE BRAUN and garnishee and claimant.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 14, 1876.

Appeal by Karl, the claimant, from a judgment of the district court for Brown county, Hanscome, J., presiding, against Hauenstein, the garnishee.

E. St. Julien Cox and Chas. R. Davis, for appellant.

S. L. Pierce and J. Newhart, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The plaintiff, in a suit against the defendant, instituted garnishee proceedings against Hauenstein. Pending the proceedings, Karl applied to be admitted as a claimant of the debt disclosed, and was so admitted. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the garnishee, for the debt disclosed, and Karl, as claimant, appeals. On the examination it appeared that Braun, before the commencement of the garnishee proceedings, executed to Karl an instrument under seal, in the words and figures following:

"State of Minnesota, county of Brown, ss. New Ulm, March 1, 1876. I, George Braun, do hereby certify and acknowledge that I have, on this first day of March, A. D. 1876, given up all claims I have against John Hauenstein in favor of John B. Karl."

Two questions are raised on the appeal: (1) Was Karl entitled to be admitted in the proceedings as a claimant of the debt garnished? (2) Was the instrument proved a sufficient assignment of the debt to Karl?

It is contended that, because Gen. St. c. 66, § 157, which prescribes when a claimant may be made a party to garnishee proceedings, provides that, "if it appears from the evidence taken, or otherwise, that any person, not a party to the action, is interested, or claims any interest, in any of the property or effects in the hands of the garnishee, by virtue of any agreement or matter which existed prior to the service of the summons, the examining officer, upon application, may permit such person to appear in the action," etc., and does not specifically mention the case of an indebtedness from the garnishee to the defendant, the latter case was not intended to be covered by the provisions of the section. It is true that most of the sections relating to garnishment preceding section 157 use the words "indebtedness to the defendant, or property, money, or effects" in the hands of the garnishee, as though the words "property or effects" were not sufficient to cover the case of indebtedness. But we think, as used in that section, those words were intended to cover every case where a garnishee could be held. They are clearly so used in...