Olean Milling Co. v. Tyler
| Citation | 235 S.W. 186,208 Mo.App. 430 |
| Parties | OLEAN MILLING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. L. B. TYLER, defendant CITIZENS' BANK OF ELDON, Garnishee, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1921 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kansas |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Miller County.--Hon. John G. Slate Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
W. S Stillwell and H. L. Donnelly for respondent.
Embry & Embry and R. F. White for Garnishee, appellant.
--This is a garnishment proceeding in aid of an attachment wherein plaintiff at the December term, 1919, of the trial court obtained judgment against defendant Tyler in the sum of $ 84.50. At the March term, 1921, of said court a judgment was rendered against the garnishee bank in the sum of $ 104.86, and garnishee has appealed.
This is a companion case to the case of Vaughan v. Tyler Citizens' Bank of Eldon, garnishee, 226 S.W. 1034. In the trial of that case had before the appeal was taken a stipulation was entered into the court below as follows: It is further agreed that the case where Olean Milling Company was plaintiff and said Bank was Garnishee "shall abide the final judgment of the Circuit Court of Miller County, Missouri, in the case now on trial wherein W. M. Vaughan is plaintiff and L. B. Tyler is defendant and Citizens Bank is garnishee." The Vaughan case was appealed to this court where the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the cause remanded with directions to that court to enter judgment against the garnishee and in favor of plaintiff in the sum that appeared to be due in that case. On receipt of the mandate the circuit court of Miller county rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the Citizens' Bank of Eldon, garnishee, in accordance with the opinion and mandate of the court.
We think there is no question but that the action of the court rendering judgment against the garnishee in the case at bar was proper in view of this stipulation. The final judgment rendered by the circuit court of Miller county in the case of Vaughan v. Tyler was the one rendered upon the receipt by the trial court of the mandate of this court in that case. The record does not disclose anything in regard to the circumstances under which the stipulation was entered into to indicate that it was intended to mean other than the words themselves of the stipulation indicate. There is no other construction to be placed upon the words of the stipulation except that the final judgment in the Vaughan case should control the final judgment in the case at bar. [Hanchett Bond Co. v. Glore, 232 S.W. 159.]
However, we think that the judgment of the trial court was proper for another reason. Under the rule of this State a chattel mortgage is regarded as constituting a security only and merely creating a lien on the subject-matter, and the legal title of the property covered by the mortgage before condition broken is in the mortgagor. [Zeltman v. Bank, 67...
To continue reading
Request your trial