Palmer v. McClelland, 1773.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 1773.,1773. |
| Citation | 123 A.2d 357 |
| Parties | Genneva PALMER, Appellant, v. Anesta P. McCLELLAND, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and ROOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Appellant, having obtained a judgment against appellee, issued a writ of attachment naming one Sperling as garnishee. Sperling, who conducts a real estate business, answered that he had been collecting rent on certain real estate owned jointly by appellee and her husband, and that he owed them $458.85, representing one month's rent. Upon filing of the garnishee's answer, appellee moved to quash the writ on the ground that the real estate was owned by her and her husband as tenants by the entirety and that the rents therefrom were not subject to attachment to satisfy a judgment against her alone. In opposition to this motion appellant moved for judgment of condemnation against the garnishee. The trial court granted the motion to quash the writ of attachment and this appeal followed.
Our first problem is whether we can decide the merits of the question raised in view of the fact that appellant did not make the garnishee a party to this appeal. In this jurisdiction, when a garnishment is served, "the suit becomes a suit in personam against the garnishee and the judgment which follows becomes a personal judgment against him." United States ex rel. Ordmann v. Cummings, 66 App.D.C. 107, 109, 85 F.2d 273, 275. When a motion to quash is granted the garnishee is no longer before the court and is, relieved of the duties and obligations incident to the attachment. Appellant is asking us to reverse the order quashing the writ, the effect of which would be to bring the garnishee back into court and subject him to imposition of a personal judgment. Clearly, the garnishee is a necessary party to this appeal.
In Stephens College v. Long, 156 Kan. 449, 134 P.2d 625, 626, the facts were, quite similar to those here, and in dismissing the appeal because the garnishee had not been made a party, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldsmith v. WILLIAM S. BERGMAN ASSOCIATES
...court the lien is dissolved and the garnishee may transfer the property that had been subject to the garnishment. See Palmer v. McClelland, 123 A.2d 357 (D.C.1956). However, where an appeal has been filed from the trial court's ruling quashing the attachment, "`pending the appeal the garnis......
-
Butler v. Butler
...and subject him to imposition of a personal judgment. Clearly, the garnishee is a necessary party to this appeal. Palmer v. McClelland, 123 A.2d 357 (D.C.Mun.App.1956). Kansas has a statutory equivalent of the Virginia rule that garnishment is an independent suit in which the garnishee is a......
-
ABDEL-KAFI v. CITICORP MORTG., INC., 98-CV-1787.
...City Corp. v. Johnson, 646 A.2d 325, 329 (D.C.1994) (plaintiff suit to set aside foreclosure against absent purchaser); Palmer v. McClelland, 123 A.2d 357 (D.C.1956) (judgment of condemnation by attaching creditor against absent garnishee). On the contrary, the Lender as plaintiff in the ca......
-
Royal Credit Co. v. Wabash
...argued that this appeal is moot because a reversal of the trial court's order would be of no benefit to appellant. See Palmer v. McClelland, D.C.Mun.App., 123 A.2d 357. We are also told that appellee has made no instalment payments and therefore the stay of execution may be readily set asid......