McIlvaine v. Lancaster
Citation | 42 Mo. 96 |
Parties | ROBERT MCILVAINE, Respondent, v. R. D. LANCASTER, GARNISHEE OF THOMAS F. SMITH, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 31 October 1867 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
A. J. P. Garesche & Mead, for appellant.
I. A trustee can only be sued in equity, and a garnishment is a law proceeding. (Curling et al. v. Hyde, 10 Mo. 376.)
II. An agent, not of the debtor, but of a third person, creditor of the debtor, is not liable to be garnisheed, because there is no privity of contract between him and the debtor. A creditor's bill, if any, is the only remedy for the party to enforce payment out of the trust fund.
Cline, Jamison & Day, for respondent.
The defendant, Lancaster, was an agent to collect rents for the trustee of Thomas F. Smith, and was garnisheed as a debtor of Smith, the beneficiary. Judgment was rendered against the garnishee upon his answer, and the case was appealed to this court.
According to the decision in McIlvaine v. Smith et al., at this term, these rents were a trust fund in the hands of the trustee until paid over by him to the beneficiary, and the agent could not be made liable under this process, as the debtor of Thomas F. Smith, for rent so collected as the agent of the trustee.
The judgment will be reversed and the garnishee discharged.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fenton v. Block
...B. R. DAVENPORT, for the respondents: An agent of a third party who is the debtor of the execution debtor, is not subject to garnishment.--42 Mo. 96; 6 N. H. 166; Drake on Attach., sect. 487. A creditor of one partner cannot garnish a debt due the firm of which that partner is a member.--13......
-
Nicholson v. Walker
...17 Mo.App. 81; Fenton v. Block, 10 Mo.App. 536; Freeman on Executions, sect. 160; Waples on Attachment and Garnishment, 194; McIlvaine v. Lancaster, 42 Mo. 96; Ward Lamson, 6 Pick. 358. II. Unless Brenneisen, the defendant in the attachment, could have maintained an action at law against th......
- Levering v. Union Transp. & Ins. Co.