Reinecke v. Gruner

• Decision Date: 15 May 1900
• Citation: 82 N.W. 900,111 Iowa 731
• Parties: REINECKE v. GRUNER ET AL. (JACOB BIEHL, INTERVENER).
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

111 Iowa 731

82 N.W. 900

REINECKE

v.GRUNER ET AL. (JACOB BIEHL, INTERVENER).

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 15, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Dubuque county; Fred O'Donnell, Judge.

This is a controversy over certain funds in the hands of one F. W. Altman, as administrator. Intervener, Biehl, filed a petition in which he claimed to be entitled thereto under an assignment from Martha Biehl, née Gruner. Plaintiff, who garnished Altman, claims that the alleged assignment was without consideration, and is fraudulent and void. The case was tried to the court, resulting in a decree finding that intervener was entitled to $350, and the garnishee the remainder. Intervener appeals. Reversed.P. S. Webster, for appellant.

H. Michel, for appellee.

DEEMER, J.

From the petition of intervention and answer thereto (which are the only pleadings the record contains), and from the decree rendered by the trial court, we gather the following facts: Plaintiff commenced action aided by attachment against Martha Biehl, née Gruner, and caused one F. W. Altman to be garnished as a supposed debtor of said Biehl. In that action Jacob Biehl intervened, claiming that he owned the funds in the hands of the garnishee in virtue of an assignment from Martha Biehl. Plaintiff and intervener stipulated that there was in the hands of the garnishee the sum of $500 belonging to the estate of George Gruner, and that Martha Gruner, now Biehl, was his sole heir. The case between plaintiff and intervener was tried to the court on the issues joined, resulting in a decree directing the administrator to pay intervener the sum of $350, and the remainder to the plaintiff. Intervener is the husband of Martha Biehl, and presents an assignment, regular on its face, of the funds in the hands of the garnishee. He is therefore entitled to recover, unless it be shown that said assignment is without consideration, and is fraudulent and void. It is difficult to understand the decree rendered by the trial court. Under the issues, it should have found that intervener was entitled to the whole of the fund or to none. There was no pleading that would justify an apportionment thereof between the parties to the litigation.

The case was tried as in equity, and will be so treated in this court. Intervener, then, must have judgment for the full amount of the fund, unless the allegations of fraud or want of consideration are established, and the burden of proving this defense is on the plaintiff. It...