Richards v. Griggs

• Decision Date: 31 July 1852
• Parties: RICHARDS, Appellant, v. GRIGGS et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

16 Mo. 416

RICHARDS, Appellant,

v.GRIGGS et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1852.

1. After an administrator, upon a settlement, has been adjudged to pay over a sum of money, he is subject to garnishment in a suit against the person in whose favor payment has been adjudged.

2. To constitute a valid assignment of a debt not evidenced by bond, bill or note, as against the debtor, notice must be given to him; and if, after an assignment without notice to him, judgment is obtained against him, as garnishee, in a suit against his original creditor, he will be protected.

Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.

SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding in the nature of a bill of interpleader, begun by the appellant, Richards, against Robert Vermilion, who sues, to the use of William Griggs, and against Arrington Simpson. Richards, the appellant, held in his hands, as administrator of L. Richards, the sum of $200, which, by an order of the County Court of Polk county, he was required to pay to the widow of said Leonard Richards, as her dower. Vermilion sued Arrington Simpson, and recovered a judgment against him, and no property being found to satisfy the execution on said judgment, Meridy Richards, the appellant, was summoned as a garnishee, on the ground that the widow of L. Richards had assigned to Arrington Simpson the said sum of $200, due by the appellant, Richards, to her as dower. These facts appearing, the justice rendered judgment against Richards, the garnishee, for the sum of $54.39, debt and costs, on which execution issued. Richards, the appellant, then filed a petition, praying that Vermilion and Simpson might interplead, and for an injunction. The injunction was granted.

The foregoing are the facts of the case, as it appears from the proceedings in the cause. Arrington Simpson states in his answer that, before Richards was garnished at the suit of Vermilion, he had assigned the debt due from Richards to him, by virtue of the transfer of the widow Richards to William and Moses Simpson. It does not appear that Richards, the appellant, had any notice of this fact at the time he was garnished, or at any time afterwards. The court dismissed Richards' bill, from which decree he appealed to this court.

1. In the case of Curling & Robertson v. Hyde, 10 Mo. Rep. 375, this court held that no person having his authority from the law, and obliged to execute it according to the rules of law, can be garnished; that an administrator, therefore, was not subject to the process of garnishment. But in the same case it was intimated that if, upon a...