Denebiem v. Wingate-Stone-Wells Mercantile Co.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1898
• Citation: 51 P. 909,59 Kan. 771
• Parties: DENEBIEM et al. v. WINGATE-STONE-WELLS MERCANTILE CO.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

51 P. 909

59 Kan. 771

DENEBIEM et al. v. WINGATE-STONE-WELLS MERCANTILE CO.

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 8, 1898

Error from district court, Bourbon county; J. S. West, Judge.

Garnishee action by the Wingate-Stone-Wells Mercantile Company against Denebiem Bros. and others. From a judgment awarding plaintiff and others liens on a stock of goods, and denying defendants Denebiem Bros. a lien thereon, they bring error. Dismissed.

Perry & Crain, for plaintiffs in error.

W. R Biddle and Keene & Gates, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This was a garnishment proceeding instituted by the defendant in error against its debtors, Greenburg & Berkson, and against the plaintiffs in error, the Citizens’ National Bank of Ft Scott, and George M. Safford. The plaintiffs in error were not served with garnishment summons, nor did they file answer to the garnishment affidavit, although named in it as garnishees. They did, however, appear by counsel, as though they had been formally garnished, and offered evidence in support of the validity of their claim to a stock of goods belonging to the debtors, Greenburg & Berkson, which was the subject of controversy. Stern, Lauer, Scholl & Co. were not named as garnishees in any of the garnishment papers, but they also appeared, and offered evidence in support of their claim to the stock of goods. The court gave judgment awarding the Citizens’ National Bank the first lien, Stern, Lauer Scholl & Co. a second lien, and the defendant in error a third lien, on the goods, and held the claim of plaintiffs in error to be fraudulent and void. It appeared upon the trial that other creditors of Greenburg & Berkson, who had neither been made parties to the garnishment proceedings, nor had intervened therein, were nevertheless entitled to liens upon the stock of goods in question. In the interest of these creditors, one W. P. Dilworth was appointed receiver to take charge of the goods remaining after the claims of the other lienholders were satisfied. From the finding of the court that the claim of the plaintiffs in error was fraudulent and void, and its judgment refusing them a lien upon the stock of goods, they prosecute error to this court. The only defendant to the proceedings in error is the Wingate-Stone-Wells Mercantile Company, the creditor which instituted the garnishment proceedings. Greenburg & Berkson, the original judgment defendants, are not made parties,...