Herman v. Siney, 3193.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 3193.,No. 3194.,3193.,3194. |
| Citation | 190 A.2d 650 |
| Parties | Samuel HERMAN, Receiver for Union Storage and Transfer Company, Appellant, v. Anna M. SINEY, Appellee. Samuel HERMAN, Receiver for Union Storage and Transfer Company, Appellant, v. Mary K. ONEY, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Blaine P. Friedlander, Washington, D. C., with whom Mark P. Friedlander, Mark P. Friedlander, Jr., Washington, D. C., and Harry P. Friedlander, Arlington, Va., were on the brief, for appellant.
Harry Tyson Carter, Washington, D. C., with whom Jerome K. Kuykendall, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal by a receiver appointed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from denial of release to him of funds held by a garnishee bank under two writs of garnishment issued to satisfy judgments of appellees in the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia1 and from condemnation of these funds by the latter court.
There is no dispute as to the facts. On July 2, 1962, default judgments were entered for appellees in the Municipal Court as creditors of the Union Storage and Transfer Company. On July 17, 1962, each issued a writ of garnishment on a local bank which answered on July 24 1962, that it was holding assets of the judgment debtor that would only partially satisfy the judgments. Motions for condemnation were filed July 27, 1962, for the pro-rated shares of the funds so held, and hearing on the motions was continued until August 30, 1962. In the meantime, on August 10, 1962, in a third suit filed against the Union Storage and Transfer Company in the District Court in which judgment was obtained, appellant was appointed receiver "of all the properties of the said corporate Defendant, real and personal, of whatever kind and description." On August 17, 1962, appellant, as receiver, filed opposition to condemnation of the funds in the Municipal Court. After hearing on August 30, 1962, the trial court granted appellees condemnation of the attached funds.
The question on appeal is whether Municipal Court judgment creditors who have caused writs of garnishment to be served on the bank account of their judgment debtor have a superior right to possession of the attached funds over the claims of a receiver subsequently appointed by the District Court.2
It is a well-settled principle that, as between federal and state courts, comity requires that the court which first obtains actual or constructive possession of property in the exercise of its jurisdiction be permitted to retain control without interference from the other since the jurisdiction of one court must of necessity yield to another.3 As early as 1836 the United States Supreme Court in Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400, 35 U.S. 400, 403, 9 L.Ed. 470, stated:
"* * * property once levied on remains in the custody of the law, and it is not liable to be taken by another execution in the hands of a different officer; and especially by an officer acting under a different jurisdiction."
The same rule would be equally applicable to the two court jurisdictions in the District of Columbia, the federal court and the municipal court.
The funds of the judgment debtor in the local bank were duly seized under writs of garnishment issued out of the Municipal Court. No attack is made on the legality of the judgments in that court or of the garnishment proceedings based thereon. The garnishee acknowledged service of the two writs served simultaneously. The property involved here had been under the constructive control of the Municipal Court since July 17, 1962, and was not, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the District Court when that court appointed appellant receiver and ordered him to take control of the judgment debtor's property.
"A receiver derives his authority from the act of the court appointing him * * * and the utmost effect of his appointment is to put the property from that time into his custody * * *."4 [Emphasis supplied.] The Municipal Court first acquired jurisdiction over the property by garnishment which vested that court with power to hear and determine all controversies relating thereto and disabled the District Court from exercising like power. The receiver was appointed in a suit to which the present appellees were not parties and after the garnishment had been completed in the Municipal Court. The appointment of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CONSUMERS UNITED INS. CO. v. SMITH
...we hold — consistent with Supreme Court authority on the Full Faith and Credit Clause — that this court's decision in Herman v. Siney, 190 A.2d 650 (D.C. 1963), requires us to affirm the judgment granting the landlord's claim to the insurance company's building and bank accounts priority ov......
-
Lankenau v. Coggeshall & Hicks
...v. Christenson, 263 F.2d 536 (10th Cir. 1959); Collins v. Pacific Underwriters, Inc., 206 F.Supp. 727 (D.Alaska 1962); Herman v. Siney, 190 A.2d 650 (D.C.App.1963). 6 The failure of the sheriff to obtain actual possession within 90 days of service of the attachment warrant does not necessar......
-
In re Technical Land, Inc.
...not maintain a suit against the receiver for a railroad company without first seeking leave of the receivership court. Cf. Herman v. Siney, 190 A.2d 650 (D.C.App.1963) (property levied upon is in custody of court, and a receiver subsequently appointed by a different court may not take posse......
-
Guardian Investment Corporation v. Rubinstein, 3153.
...284 F.2d 279, 281 (1960); King v. Wall & Beaver Street Corporation, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 237, 145 F.2d 377, 380 (1944); Herman v. Siney, D.C. App., 190 A.2d 650 (1963). 9. Creswell-Keith, Inc. v. Willingham, 264 F.2d 76, 80 (8 Cir., 1959); Blackwell v. Bentsen, 203 F.2d 690, 693 (5 Cir., 19......