Pounds v. Chatham

Citation96 Ind. 342
Decision Date24 June 1884
Docket Number11,185
PartiesPounds et al. v. Chatham
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

From the Hendricks Circuit Court.

The judgment is reversed, at the appellee's costs, with instruction to the court below to restate its conclusions of law in favor of the appellants, and to render judgment accordingly.

L. A Barnett, -- Wilson and -- Wilson, for appellants.

L. M Campbell, for appellee.

OPINION

Hammond J.

This was a proceeding supplementary to execution under section 819, R. S. 1881.

The appellee's affidavit was as follows:

"Barbara A. Chatham v. Joseph B. Pounds.

"Affidavit for Proceedings Supplementary to Execution.

"The plaintiff, Barbara A. Chatham, being sworn, says on oath, that she has a judgment rendered in this court against said defendant, on the 16th day of June, 1883, for $ 1,942 and costs of said suit, amounting to $ 8.25, upon which she caused execution to issue, June 27th, 1883, and which execution has been returned by the sheriff of this county unsatisfied, said defendant claiming that he had no property. Affiant says that said Joseph B. Pounds resides in Hendricks county, and is not a householder, and that she is informed and believes said defendant recently, and only about three months since, had one hundred and sixty acres of land in Lyon county, Kansas, of the value of $ 2,000, which he conveyed to his brother, Archibald P. Pounds, and that he also had a lot of bees of the probable value of $ 40, the proceeds of which he unjustly refuses to apply on plaintiff's debt, or toward the satisfaction of said execution. And affiant further believes that said Archibald P. Pounds is indebted to the defendant, Joseph B. Pounds, in the value of said Kansas land or a material part thereof, or that he holds property of said Joseph B. Pounds, which should be applied on plaintiff's debt, and is not exempt from execution. Wherefore she prays that an order be issued requiring both said Joseph B. Pounds and Archibald P. Pounds to appear forthwith before this court, to be examined under oath in relation thereto, and to answer concerning the same."

The court, at the request of appellee, after the examination of the parties, made a special finding of facts, stating its conclusions of law thereon, which were as follows:

"The court finds that the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant, Joseph B. Pounds, on the 16th day of June 1883, for $ 1,942 and $ 8.25 costs of said suit, on which execution issued June 27th, 1883, which was returned unsatisfied June 29th, 1883, and is still unpaid; that said Joseph B. Pounds is a resident of Hendricks county, Indiana, and not a householder; that he has no property in said county of any value, except four stands of bees, worth $ 40; that on the 8th day of March, 1883, said Joseph B. Pounds conveyed by deed upon its face, to said Archibald P. Pounds, the following described lands in Lyon county, Kansas: The W. 1/2 of S. E. 1/4 and E. 1/2 of S.W. 1/4 of section 33, township 18, range 10 east, which deed was recorded in said county of Lyon, March 14th, 1883; that said Archibald P. Pounds paid no consideration therefor whatever; that said Archibald P. Pounds executed to said Joseph B. Pounds at said date, March 8th, 1883, a written undertaking to maintain said Joseph B. Pounds, during his life, with a condition therein expressed that said deed should be void if the undertaking of said Archibald was not kept, and a further agreement that said Archibald should assume the payment of $ 110 due other parties from said Joseph, which debts have not been paid; the value of said land is not satisfactorily proven, but it is estimated to be worth about $ 1,000. The court further finds that said Joseph B. Pounds had been indebted continuously for more than ten years to the plaintiff, in sums varying from $ 700 to $ 1,900, and that he had been repeatedly requested to pay the same for several...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • First Nat. Bank v. Bebinger
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1930
    ...P. 857, 37 Am. St. Rep. 50; Watson v. Pryor, 49 Cal.App. 554, 193 P. 797; Societa di Mutuo v. Mantel, 1 Cal. App. 107, 89 P. 659; Pounds v. Chatham, 96 Ind. 342; Harper v. Behagg, 14 Ind.App. 427, 42 N.E. In re Downey, 31 Mont. 441, 78 P. 772. In the case of Theo. Hirsch Co. v. Scott, supra......
  • Schwedland v. Bachman
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 31, 1987
    ...Elec. Co. (1925), 201 Ind. 568, 146 N.E. 821 (court directed appellant to pay allowance to receiver of trust and attorney); Pounds v. Chatham (1884), 96 Ind. 342 (order in proceedings supplemental requiring third party to pay into court money for the use of wife which third party owed to hu......
  • Hudson v. Tyson
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • November 27, 1978
    ...that an order in a proceedings supplemental is necessarily interlocutory, such reliance is ill-founded. In Bell we did cite Pounds v. Chatham, (1884) 96 Ind. 342, for the proposition that an order in a proceedings supplemental requiring a third-party garnishee to pay a judgment creditor mon......
  • Harper v. Behagg
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 19, 1896
    ...in this state have definitely determined that it is an independent action, and not a part of the original case. Pounds v. Chatham, 96 Ind. 342;Railway Co. v. Summers, 113 Ind. 10, 14 N. E. 733. Although, under the Code, since 1881, the mode of procedure is summary, and without formal issues......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT