Keeton v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 10 January 1927
• Docket Number: 25999
• Citation: 144 Miss. 899,110 So. 839
• Parties: KEETON et al. (EASTMAN-GARDINER & CO. GARNISHEE) v. ROBINSON. [*]
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

110 So. 839

144 Miss. 899

KEETON et al. (EASTMAN-GARDINER & CO. GARNISHEE) v. ROBINSON. ^[*]

No. 25999

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 10, 1927

Division A

APPEAL AND ERROR. Evidence. Judicial Knowledge will be taken of reversal of judgment in original action pending appeal from judgment against garnishee, and garnishment proceedings dismissed.

Where pending appeal from judgment against garnishee, judgment in original action was reversed by the Supreme Court, judicial knowledge will be taken that basis of garnishment proceeding had been rendered nugatory, and garnishment proceedings will be dismissed, and garnishee discharged.

HON. R S. HALL, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, First district, HON. R S. HALL, Judge.

Garnishment proceeding by Rayburn Robinson against Daisye Keeton, David F. McRae and others, wherein Eastman-Gardiner & Co. were garnishees. Judgment for plaintiff against the garnishees, and the garnishees appeal. Reversed, and cause dismissed.

Judgment reversed.

C. S. Street and Welch & Cooper, for appellants.

F. B. Collins, for appellee.

OPINION

MCGOWEN, J.

Rayburn Robinson, appellee, obtained a judgment in the circuit court, Second district, Jones county, Miss., at the regular November, 1925, term, for nine thousand five hundred dollars against David F. McRae and others, who, in turn, prosecuted an appeal to the supreme court, without supersedeas, said cause being No. 25779 in this court.

Pending the appeal without supersedeas, Rayburn Robinson, plaintiff, caused to be issued a writ of garnishment against McRae, which was served on Eastman-Gardiner & Co., as debtor of McRae, and the garnishee filed its answer in response thereto, denying any indebtedness to McRae. Robinson contested this answer, and, the issue being tried in the circuit court, judgment was entered against the garnishee for the sum of five hundred forty-six dollars and nine cents, from which Eastman-Gardiner & Co., prosecuted an appeal to this court, said cause being on docket here as No. 25999.

This cause was submitted on briefs on November 15, 1926. On November 29, 1926, however, this court considered and finally determined cause No. 25779, setting aside and annulling the nine thousand five hundred dollars judgment obtained by Robinson, and further holding that he was not entitled to that judgment, or to any judgment, against McRae, and so finally disposed of said cause, 144 Miss. 693, 110 So. 504.

The judgment in garnishment against the garnishee, Eastman-Gardiner & Co. is dependent upon there being a valid judgment in favor of Rayburn Robinson against David F. McRae, and we have now determined that there is no judgment against McRae, so that the question sharply presented to us is as to whether or not we shall take judicial knowledge of the judgment rendered by us on November 29, 1926, by which judgment the garnishment proceedings were nullified and should be dismissed, and the garnishee discharged, or whether we shall permit other expensive and vexatious litigation in order to be rid of the judgment against the garnishee in this cause, to which Rayburn Robinson is clearly not now entitled.

Regardless of whether or not the case now before us would be reversed upon a review of the trial had on the garnishee's answer in the court below, we have reached the conclusion that it is so perfectly clear and manifest that the judgment which we rendered in cause No. 25779, nullifying the judgment against McRae, destroying any claim which Robinson might have against McRae, nullifies and destroys any judgment Robinson might have against one of the debtors of McRae; for, if he could have no claim or judgment against McRae, neither could he have any claim against a garnishment based upon a judgment which has been by us rendered nugatory.

Believing, as we do, that this case has now become a moot case, and without extending the doctrine of judicial knowledge, we have decided to go straight to the relief of the parties in this case, and take judicial notice of what has occurred in our own court between the parties in interest, and of the judgment rendered by us nullifying the basis of the present litigation (the judgment against McRae), and put an end to the matter, that these parties may be saved vexatious litigation and unnecessary costs, in order to finally properly dispose of this case.

In the case of Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293, the supreme court, in passing upon a motion to dismiss an appeal, because no actual controversy existed, said:

"The duty of this court, as of every other judicial...