Cross v. Spillman

• Decision Date: 26 May 1891
• Parties: CROSS v. SPILLMAN ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

9 So. 362

93 Ala. 170

CROSS v. SPILLMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 26, 1891

Appeal from city court of Decatur; W. H. SIMPSON, Judge.

This action was commenced by Robert Riddle & Co. against J. F Spillman and J. B. Scott, partners as Spillman & Scott, and later J. T. Cross was made garnishee. From a judgment against both defendant and garnishee the latter appeals.

Brichell, Harris & Eyster, for appellant.

E W. Godbey and Wert & Speake, for appellees.

COLEMAN J.

The original suit was begun in the circuit court of Morgan county by Robert Riddle & Co. against Spillman & Scott, a partnership composed of J. F. Spillman and J. B. Scott, and the original case is thus stated on the docket. Pending suit and before judgment, plaintiffs sued out writs of garnishment, which were executed on the Young Men's Christian Association and J. T. Cross, appellant in the present appeal. The next record entry in the style of the case in the circuit court is as follows: "Robert Riddle & Co. vs. Spillman & Scott; J. T. Cross and the Young Men's Christian Association, Garnishees. Answer of J. T Cross, garnishee in the above-styled cause." Here follows the answer of the garnishee, filed May 4, 1889, admitting an indebtedness of $82. The next entry of record by the circuit court is as follows: "Robert Riddle & Co. vs. Spillman & Scott. Come the parties by their attorneys, and in open court consent that this cause be transferred to the city court of Decatur. It is therefore ordered," etc. Dated 21st May, 1889. The first statement of the case in the city court of Decatur is as follows: "Robert Riddle & Co. vs. Spillman & Scott; J. T. Cross, Garnishee. Comes J. Spillman, and contests the answer of the garnishee." Here follows the contest. Filed July 8, 1889. The next entry of the case in the city court is as follows: "Robert Riddle v. Spillman & Scott. In this cause the defendants confess judgment in favor of plaintiffs," etc. The next style of the case in the city court is as follows: "Robert Riddle v. Spillman & Scott; J. T. Cross, Garnishee." Then follows the judgment sustaining the contest, and under the statute a judgment is rendered for defendants against the garnishee for $402.65.

It is evident from the foregoing statements of the style of the proceedings that both in the circuit court before the order of transfer was made, and in the city court after the order of transfer was made, the suit against the garnishee was kept separate and distinct from that of the suit against the principal debtors, Spillman & Scott; and where entries and orders were made which affected the rights of the garnishee as such, the style of the cause was "Robert Riddle v. Spillman & Scott; J. T. Cross, Garnishee." We do not intimate it was necessary to have the proceedings kept separate as two suits, and we have stated them merely to show how the orders of the court affected the parties. We have seen, when the order transferring the cause from the circuit to the city court was made, the style of the case was "Robert Riddle & Co. v. Spillman & Scott," only. The garnishees were not made parties, where the order of transfer is entered. A garnishment is essentially a legal proceeding, and in its nature and operation is the institution of a suit by a creditor against the debtor of a debtor. Harris v. Miller, 71 Ala. 32. A garnishment issued at the suit of a judgment creditor against a supposed debtor of the defendant in the judgment is a new suit, to which the creditor is plaintiff, and the garnishee defendant. The judgment debtor is a stranger to the proceedings, unless he intervenes to controvert the answer of the garnishee....