Fisher v. Jacobs
| Decision Date | 28 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 48817 |
| Citation | 39 Ill.App.2d 332,188 N.E.2d 505 |
| Parties | Thomas H. FISHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John K. JACOBS, Defendant-Appellee. The First National Bank of Chicago, as Trustee under the Will of Otto Young, Deceased, and John E. Sullivan, Alfred M. Rogers and the First National Bank of Chicago, as Trustees under the Conveyance and Liquidation Trust Agreement, Garnishees-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Norman Crawford, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.
Wilson & McIlvaine, Chicago, for garnishees-appellees.
Plaintiff Thomas H. Fisher brought this attachment proceeding in the Circuit Court of Cook County to collect form nonresident defendant John K. Jacobs the sum of $1,745.13, claimed due plaintiff for attorney's fees. On motion of one of the garnishees, the trial court dismissed the entire case 'for lack of jurisdiction.' Plaintiff appeals.
The basic facts are not disputed. The property described in the attachment writ was 'money due John K. Jacobs from trust assets of a value of $2,000 forming part of the trust estate in the hands of The First National Bank of Chicago, as Trustee under the Will of Otto Young, Deceased, and John E. Sullivan, Alfred M. Rogers and The First National Bank of Chicago as Trustees under the Conveyance and Liquidation Trust Agreement.' The $2,000 is part of the Marie Louise Brill share of the Otto Young trust estate and is still in the possession of the garnishees. The garnishees contend that the funds are not subject to attachment or garnishment because (1) they are in custodia legis of the U. S. District Court; (2) they are trust funds; and (3) they are protected by a spendthrift clause.
Nonresident defendant Jacobs was served by publication; he entered no appearance and has not participated in these proceedings. All of the garnishees have entered their appearances by filing notices and stipulations.
The order of dismissal was entered on an unverified motion of garnishee First National Bank to dismiss the action as to in on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the assets described in the attachment writ. The motion included statements of facts to support the basic contentions. Within 30 days after the entry of the order of dismissal, plaintiff filed a verified motion to vacate it and set forth additional facts, not theretofore included in the complaint or in the affidavit for attachment, concerning the legal status of the instant funds. Plaintiff appeals from the order of dismissal and from the denial of his motion to vacate that order.
Plaintiff contends that the court erred in denying his motion to vacate the order of dismissal. Section 50(6) of the Civil Practice Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, c. 110, § 50(6) provides that '[t]he court may in its discretion, * * * on motion filed within 30 days after entry thereof set aside any final order, judgment or decree upon any terms and conditions that shall be reasonable.' '[W]hether or not a court should vacate and set aside judgments and orders previously made generally rests in the sound discretion of the court, depending on the facts presented.' (People ex rel. Elliott v. Benefiel, 405 Ill. 500, 505, 91 N.E.2d 427, 430 (1950).) And it is only where there has been an abuse of discretion that a reviewing court will interfere. Dalton v. Alexander, 10 Ill.App.2d 273, 135 N.E.2d 101 (1956); Busser v. Noble, 8 Ill.App.2d 268, 131 N.E.2d 637 (1956); Charles Ford & Associates v. Goldberg, 7 Ill.App.2d 241, 129 N.E.2d 337 (1955).
Plaintiff's verified motion shows that on December 30, 1960, a consent decree was entered in the U. S. District Court in Chicago in case No. 43 C 1043, entitled DeKorwin v. First National Bank of Chicago. In part it decreed:
'B. Pursuant to the findings and conclusions hereinabove set forth the Testamentary Trustee and the Liquidation Trustees are directed:
'1) to pay and distribute out of the segregated share of MARIE LOUISE BRILL the following sums in cash jointly to the following named persons and their attorneys of record, if any, as indicated below:
Assignee or
Subassignee Attorney Cash
* * *
John K. Jacobs Louis L. Kahn $5,355.45
Jack A. Diamond
* * *
Plaintiff relies on the terms of the above decree to disprove the contention of garnishees that the funds sought to be garnished are in custodia legis, as held in DeKorwin v. First National Bank, 267 F.2d 337 (7 Cir., 1959), where, in discussing the Otto Young trust estate, it was said (p. 340):
In general, property or funds in custodia legis are not subject either to attachment or garnishment. However, any occurrence that changes the custody of an officer from custodia legis into a personal obligation to the owner renders the property attachable or garnishable. 'After the person who is entitled to a fund has been ascertained, together with the amount to which he is entitled, and an order has been made for payment, the court officer or custodian then becomes the agent of such party and may thereafter be garnished, or the fund in his custody attached.' 6 Am. Jur.2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 203 (1963).
This view is followed in Illinois. '[W]hen officers of a court have been ordered to pay funds to a party, a different situation arises. * * * 'There can be no question that the party to whom this money was ordered by the court to be paid, had a right to demand and receive this money * * * and if not paid, he could maintain an action for it. * * * The money is no longer in the custody of the law, but in that of a person, who quoad hoc, becomes the trustee of the party entitled.'' (Jones v. Engel, 349 Ill.App. 423, 427, 111 N.E.2d 187, 189 (1953); Pierce v. Carleton, 12 Ill. 358 (1851); Weaver v. Davis, 47 Ill. 235 (1868).) We conclude that the fund sought to be attached is no longer in custodia...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Andrews
...; Georgia, see Lamb v. Thalimer Enterprises, Inc., 193 Ga.App. 70, 386 S.E.2d 912 (1989) ; Illinois, see Fisher v. Jacobs, 39 Ill.App.2d 332, 188 N.E.2d 505 (1963) ; Indiana, see Browning & Herdrich Oil Co. v. Hall, 489 N.E.2d 988 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) ; Iowa, see Anderson v. Iowa Dep't of Huma......
-
Woodring v. Jennings State Bank
...of the whole. 7 C.J.S. Attachment § 90 (1937); 6 Am.Jur.2d Attachment & Garnishment § 98 (1963); e.g., Fisher v. Jacobs, 39 Ill.App.2d 332, 188 N.E.2d 505, 508 (1963) (garnishment of joint bank account: "A creditor makes a prima facie case when he garnishes a joint account to which the judg......
-
Welch v. Fiber Glass Engineering, Inc.
...Angeles v. Knapp (1937), 22 Cal.App.2d 211 ,70 P.2d 643; Dunsmoor v. Furstenfeldt (1891), 88 Cal. 552, 26 P. 518; Fisher v. Jacobs (1963), 39 Ill.App.2d 332, 188 N.E.2d 505; Hopping v. Hopping, supra, footnote 1; Langdon v. Lockett (1844), 6 Ala. 727; Le Roy v. Jacobosky (1904), 136 N.C. 44......
-
In re Chicago Discount Commodity Brokers, Inc.
...permitting their use to satisfy claims against Tate under the Guaranty. The Trustee relies on two Illinois cases, Fisher v. Jacobs, 39 Ill.App.2d 332, 188 N.E.2d 505 (1963); Miller v. Standard State Bank, 31 Ill.App.2d 189, 176 N.E.2d 639 (1961), for the proposition that a creditor can "att......