Jax Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. South Florida Farms Co.

• Decision Date: 08 April 1926
• Citation: 91 Fla. 593,109 So. 212
• Parties: JAX ICE & COLD STORAGE CO. et al. v. SOUTH FLORIDA FARMS CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

109 So. 212

91 Fla. 593

JAX ICE & COLD STORAGE CO. et al. v. SOUTH FLORIDA FARMS CO.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

April 8, 1926

Rehearing Denied May 11, 1926.

Interpleader suit by the South Florida Farms Company against the Jax Ice &amp Cold Storage Company and others. From an adverse decree defendants appeal.

Reversed with directions.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Person seeking interpleader cannot cast on claimants burden of settling question whether complainant has obligated himself to one of parties; in interpleader, complainant should be indifferent between claimants, without interest in controversy, and should not by any act on his part have caused embarrassment of conflicting claims and peril of double vexation. The person seeking an interpleader cannot cast upon the claimants the burden of settling the question of whether the complainant has obligated himself to one of the parties. He is supposed to know whether he has or not. The complainant should be indifferent between the claimants without interest in the controversy, and should not by any act on his part have caused the embarrassment of conflicting claims and the peril of double vexation.

Assignment of judgment to third person prior to garnishment of judgment debtor by creditor of judgment creditor cannot embarrass judgment debtor or subject him to hazard of another obligation on account of judgment; if garnishment of judgment debtor by creditor of judgment creditor is no protection to judgment debtor as against judgment assigned to third person before garnishment, he has only to answer truthfully facts as he knows them and apply to court in which judgment was obtained for discharge on paying debt into court; all courts have inherent power to prevent abuse of their process. Where a judgment creditor assigns his judgment to a third person, and afterwards the judgment debtor is garnished by a creditor of the judgment creditor, the assignment of the judgment cannot embarrass the judgment debtor or subject him to the hazard of another obligation on account of the judgment. If the garnishment is no protection to the judgment debtor, he has only to answer truthfully the facts as he knows them, and apply to the court in which the judgment was obtained for a discharge upon the payment of the debt into court. All courts have the inherent power to prevent abuse of their process.

Garnishee should set up in answer facts as they exist; if garnishee denies existence of liability which exists, and subjects himself to danger of liability to garnishing creditor on such issue, he cannot get relief in equity as by interpleader. A garnishee should set up in his answer the facts as they exist. If he denies the existence of liability when in fact it does exist, and subjects himself to the danger of liability to the garnishing creditor on that issue, the garnishee cannot complain of the embarrassment produced by his own course of action. The situation affords no ground for relief in equity.

Judgment debtor garnished may, on proper application to court in which judgment was obtained, secure order staying enforcement of judgment to abide result of garnishment proceedings. A judgment debtor summoned as garnishee may, upon proper application seasonably made to the court where the judgment was obtained, secure an order staying the enforcement of the judgment to abide the result of the garnishment proceedings.

Liens for services of attorneys in procuring judgments constitute no basis for interpleader between assignees of judgment garnishing creditor and themselves, where judgment debtor by appropriate application to court may relieve himself from dual liability. Liens for services of attorneys in procuring judgments constitute no basis for an interpleader between assignees of the judgment garnishing creditor and themselves, because the judgment debtor, by an appropriate and seasonable application to the court, may relieve himself from dual liability.

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Soto County; George W. Whitehurst, judge.

COUNSEL

George M. Powell, of Jacksonville, for appellants.

E. J. L'Engle, of Jacksonville, Treadwell & Treadwell, of Arcadia, J. W. Shands, of Jacksonville, Mabry, Reaves & Carlton and Knight, Thompson & Turner, all of Tampa, Leitner & Leitner, of Arcadia, and H. G. Jones, of Miami, for appellee.

OPINION

ELLIS J.

This is an interpleader suit. The bill was exhibited by the appellee in the circuit court for De Soto county on September 23, 1922. The defendants named were D. W. Stevenson, Marian N. O'Brien, Treadwell & Treadwell, Jax Ice & Cold Storage Company, and the Security State Bank of Ft. Ogden.

The bill rests upon the following facts: During the early part of the year 1921 D. W. Stevenson recovered a judgment against the complainant in the sum of $61,884.03, but upon writ of error from the Supreme Court the judgment was affirmed August 16, 1922, on condition that a remittitur should be entered reducing the judgment to $24,985.28, and that it stands of record for that amount and interest. D. W. Stevenson, on February 23, 1921, assigned the judgment to Marian N. O'Brien, and afterwards, on July 7, 1921, to Treadwell & Treadwell. Early in the year 1921 the Jax Ice & Cold Storage Company garnished the complainant in an action by that company against D. W. Stevenson, which was pending in Duval county, Fla., and afterwards the Security State Bank of Ft. Ogden, on September 19, 1922, garnished the complainant in an action by that bank against D. W. Stevenson pending in De Soto county. The complainant alleges that it is unable to decide to whom the money due upon said judgment should be paid, and that all the defendants claim it; that it has no beneficial interest in the money due; and that it is ready to pay the judgment, but it cannot determine without hazard to itself to whom of right it belongs.

The bill prays that the defendants be restrained from 'suing out executions or harassing' the complainant in any manner; that the court will determine to whom the money due upon the judgment belongs; that the defendants be required to 'answer'; and that the complainant be allowed its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees in the matter expended, and for general relief.

On October 19, 1922, the chancellor ordered to be issued an injunction against the defendants enjoining them from issuing executions upon the judgment or proceeding in the garnishments. It was ordered that the complainant deposit the money in the registry of the court within ten days, upon doing which it should be discharged from the 'judgment,' and that the money should be paid out only upon vouchers signed by the clerk and countersigned by the judge. The injunction was issued pursuant to such order.

On November 6, 1922, the Security State Bank of Ft. Ogden answered, averring that the defendant Stevenson owed it $15,000, and that it 'garnished the moneys' in the hands of the complainant immediately upon the 'rendition and affirming of the said judgment' for the sum of $24,985.28. The evidence shows that the bank obtained a judgment against Stevenson on December 8, 1922, in the sum of $15,635.60, and that a writ of garnishment was duly issued in that cause, naming the complainant as garnishee on September 19, 1922. The answer averred that the bank's claim was superior to that of all other defendants. It averred that Stevenson owed nothing to Marian O'Brien; that Treadwell & Treadwell had never attached the moneys; and that the garnishment by the Jax Ice Company was void because the writ of garnishment issued from the circuit court of Duval county in an action pending there; and that, when the writ issued, the complainant owed Stevenson nothing.

The garnishment in behalf of the Jax Ice Company was issued May 28, 1921, a little more than three months after the judgment was obtained by Stevenson against the complainant. The judgment against Stevenson in favor of the Ice Company was for $7,729.11, and was obtained May 3, 1921.

On November 6, 1922, D. W. Stevenson answered, admitting the assignment of his judgment against the complainant as alleged in its bill of complaint. The bill alleged that the defendant Stevenson 'attempted to assign' the judgment to Mrs. O'Brien and Treadwell & Treadwell.

On the same day Treadwell & Treadwell answered the bill, admitting the assignment of the judgment as alleged in the bill, and averring their interest in the 'judgment and the proceeds thereof,' by reason of their lien securing to them payment for their services as attorneys for Stevenson in procuring the judgment. On April 3, 1923, Treadwell & Treadwell amended their answer by averring that their lien upon the judgment rested upon an agreement with Stevenson, 'prior to the institution of suit which resulted in said judgment; that he (Stevenson) would pay unto these defendants the said sum of 25 per cent. of any amount recovered, and such additional sum as might be necessary to enable these defendants to employ associate counsel in the Supreme Court of Florida in said cause.'

That averment was supported by the testimony of Mr. Stevenson, who said that he agreed with Mr. Treadwell 'on a basis 25 per cent. of the amount recovered, plus any amount that might be occasioned by hiring any associate counsel and expenses.' It was also supported by the testimony of Mr. E. D. Treadwell, a member of the firm of Treadwell & Treadwell, who, replying to a question propounded by the Solicitor for the State Bank of Ft. Ogden whether Mr. Stevenson had not furnished considerable money to apply on attorneys' fees, said:

'Not a cent, Judge. As a matter of fact, our firm paid the costs of filing papers. Mr. Stevenson never contributed a cent; stated he was not in financial condition. Paid my own

...