Kuhnes v. Cahill

• Decision Date: 20 October 1905
• Citation: 104 N.W. 1025,128 Iowa 594
• Parties: KUHNES v. CAHILL (RILEY ET AL., INTERVENERS).
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

128 Iowa 594

104 N.W. 1025

KUHNES

v.CAHILL (RILEY ET AL., INTERVENERS).

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 20, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Calhoun County; Z. A. Church, Judge.

The opinion states the case. From a judgment in favor of interveners, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.M. R. McCreary, for appellant.

E. C. Stevenson, for appellees.

BISHOP, J.

August 2, 1901, plaintiff sold to defendant, Cahill, a lot of hogs at the agreed price of $323.60, for and on account of which Cahill drew a check in ordinary form, payable to plaintiff, on the First National Bank of Rockwell City. Plaintiff did not present the check at the bank for payment until about August 12, 1901, when payment was refused. It is conceded that at the time the check was drawn and presented Cahill had on deposit in said bank, subject to check, the sum of $794. Payment was refused because, just before the check was presented, the bank had been garnished at the suit of some person not mentioned in the record against Cahill. On August 12, 1901, and after payment of the check had been refused, plaintiff commenced this action against Cahill on account to recover the sum of $323.60, the agreed sale value of the hogs. The action was aided by an attachment, and the First National Bank was garnished thereunder on the same day. On October 28, 1901, petitions of intervention were separately filed in said action on behalf of R. H. Riley, Frank Logsdon, C. F. McHugh, Gilbert Davis, G. W. Carlisle, and H. Conley. Each of the petitions was based upon a check in ordinary form given by Cahill in payment for hogs sold, and drawn upon said First National Bank. That in favor of Riley was drawn August 3, 1901, for $13.77; that in favor of Logsdon was drawn August 3, 1901, for $189.72; that in favor of McHugh was drawn July 13, 1901, for $50.76; that in favor of Davis was drawn August 3, 1901, for $92; that in favor of Carlisle was drawn August 3, 1901, for $64.51; and that in favor of Conley was drawn August 2, 1901, for $39.30. In each of the petitions it is alleged that the respective check constituted a pro tanto assignment, equal to the amount named therein, of the moneys on deposit in the bank to the credit of Cahill. The prayer of each petition is that the right of plaintiff to subject said deposit fund to the payment of her debt be postponed until after payment due interveners has been made, and judgment is asked as against both parties and the bank, garnishee. To the several petitions of intervention, the plaintiff filed formal answer. The case was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts, in which was recited the matters stated above, with the additional fact that, following the garnishment of the bank by plaintiff, each of the interveners presented his check to the bank and payment in each instance was refused. By the judgment entered, plaintiff was awarded a recovery as against Cahill in the amount of her claim, with interest and the costs of the action; each of the interveners was awarded a recovery as against Cahill for the amount of his claim, respectively, and against the deposit fund in the hands of the bank, garnishee, for such amount, with interest; in favor of the interveners, the costs of the action were ordered taxed against...