Paradise v. Giannini
| Decision Date | 07 March 1933 |
| Citation | 247 N.W. 472,211 Wis. 42 |
| Parties | PARADISE v. GIANNINI ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County; Charles L. Aarons, Circuit Judge.
Action by Louis Paradise against Albert Giannini and another, in which plaintiff recovered judgment against defendants, and in which defendant Captain Harry Ridenour was brought in under a statute respecting remedies supplementary to execution. From the judgment, defendant Ridenour appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Action begun April 20, 1932; order entered August 1, 1932. Supplementary proceedings. Power of court commissioner to order payment. The defendant Ridenour, captain of detectives of the Milwaukee police department, received from Giannini and Peccerelle, who were then under arrest, the sum of $3,005 in cash, the money being paid as a bribe. In a subsequent proceeding had in the criminal court, Giannini and Peccerelle were convicted of bribery. The money paid was used as an exhibit in the criminal trial. After being introduced in evidence in the criminal trial, the money was turned over to the clerk of the municipal court. Upon the trial of this action the defendant Ridenour testified that he obtained possession of the money from the clerk of the municipal court, it being turned over to him pursuant to direction given by the court. The money was then placed in the property room of the police department. The defendant Ridenour testified that he held it for the benefit of the city which made some claim to it and pending the determination of whether or not it belonged to the city, to the state, or to the fire and police pension fund.
The plaintiff having procured a judgment against the defendants Giannini and Peccerelle, and an execution having been returned unsatisfied, proceedings supplementary to execution were instituted before a court commissioner. The court commissioner held that the defendant Ridenour, who had been summoned as a witness, made no personal claim to the fund adverse to the judgment debtors; that the state of Wisconsin claimed no interest in the fund; that there was no provision in the Milwaukee charter which forfeited this money to the city or the fire and police pension fund, and ordered the defendant Ridenour to turn over the $3,005 to the receiver, the same to be applied upon the judgments which the plaintiff had against the defendants Giannini and Peccerelle. The defendant Ridenour refused to comply with the order, whereupon the record was certified to the circuit court for review. Upon review of this order the circuit court sustained the order of the court commissioner and directed the defendant Ridenour to forthwith pay over to the receiver the sum of $3,005. From such order the defendant Ridenour brings this appeal.
Max Raskin, City Atty., and Joseph L. Bednarek and John E. Megna, Asst. City Attys., all of Milwaukee, for appellant.
John L. Newman and Raymond J. Cannon, both of Milwaukee, for respondent.
The defendant Ridenour was not a party to the action but was brought in under the provisions of chapter 273, Wis. Stats., entitled “Remedies Supplementary To Execution.” Under that chapter a judgment debtor may be compelled to answer as to his property either by summons or by a warrant of arrest. When the judgment debtor appears, he may be examined upon oath and witnesses may be required to appear and testify as upon the trial of an issue.
By section 273.08, it is provided: “The judge may order any property of the judgment debtor in the hands either of himself or any other person or due to the judgment debtor, not exempt from execution, to be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment.” It is further provided: “But if it appear that any person alleged to have property of the judgment debtor or to be indebted to him claims an interest in the property adverse to him, or denies the debt, such interest or debt shall be recoverable only in an action against such person by the receiver.”
[1] Upon this appeal the question is raised as to whether or not Ridenour is a real party in interest. If he is not a party, he has no right to appeal. Only a party aggrieved by a judgment or order can appeal therefrom. Hammond-Chandler L. Co. v. Industrial Comm.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nick v. Holtz
...opportunity is given to the receiver to commence the action and prosecute the same to judgment. Sec. 273.08, Stats. Paradise v. Ridenour, 211 Wis. 42, 247 N. W. 472; 2 Wait's Actions and Defenses p. 217, § 32; 4 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, p. 3597, § 1531. The receiver has some freedom o......
- Mahan v. Herreid
-
State, Dept. of Revenue v. Milwaukee Mack Sales, Inc., 76-451
...a third party as to their rights in the property, the dispute must be adjudicated in a suit by the receiver. In Paradise v. Ridenour, 211 Wis. 42, 46, 247 N.W. 472, 473 (1933), we " . . . It is a general rule that in the course of supplementary proceedings the title to property may not be a......
-
Miller v. Lighter
...judgment or order and entitled to appeal under sec. 274.10, Stats., even though he is not a named party in the suit. Paradise v. Bidenour (1933), 211 Wis. 42, 247 N.W. 472. Generally where the aggrieved party is not a named party to the action he nevertheless has a substantial interest adve......