Rubin v. Bassakin
Decision Date | 28 June 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 24846.,24846. |
Citation | 130 S.W.2d 224 |
Parties | RUBIN v. BASSAKIN (NORTHWESTERN TRUST CO., Garnishee). |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Peter T. Barrett, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Action by Ben Rubin, by C. M. Walters, Sr., etc., against Ben Bassakin, wherein Northwestern Trust Company was summoned as garnishee. From an adverse judgment, the garnishee appeals.
Affirmed.
Leahy, Walther, Hecker & Ely and Hugo M. Walther, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Grimm, Mueller & Roberts, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an appeal by Northwestern Trust Company from a judgment rendered against it by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in a garnishment proceeding in which the trust company was summoned as a garnishee.
It appears that, on May 2, 1933, a judgment in the sum of $75 was rendered in a justice of the peace court in favor of respondent Ben Rubin, as plaintiff, against Ben Bassakin, as defendant. A transcript of the judgment was filed in the circuit court, upon which garnishment proceedings were begun against the appellant trust company and a garnishment summons was served upon the trust company on May 27, 1933. The summons recited that it was issued by virtue of a writ of fieri facias (execution) in favor of Ben Rubin and against "Ben Bassakin." In due time interrogatories were filed by Ben Rubin, after which answers thereto were filed by the trust company. All of the interrogatories filed by respondent Ben Rubin, as plaintiff, as well as the answers thereto made by appellant as garnishee referred to the judgment debtor as "Ben Bassakin." In its answers to the interrogatories, the trust company denied that it had in its possession, custody, or charge any goods, chattels, moneys, or credit belonging to "Ben Bassakin", and stated that it was not in any way indebted to "Ben Bassakin"; that it was not in any way bound in any contract to pay "Ben Bassakin" any money.
Respondent Ben Rubin filed a denial to the trust company's answers to the interrogatories, and alleged therein that, at the time of the service of the garnishment, the trust company did have and since said time has had in its possession goods, chattels, moneys, and credits belonging to Ben Bassakin in the form of a banking account; that, at the time of the service of the garnishment, it was and has since been indebted to Ben Bassakin; that, at the time of the service of the garnishment, the trust company was bound and has since been bound to pay Ben Bassakin money.
The cause was tried before the court without a jury in May, 1937, upon an agreed statement of facts and the testimony of Ben Basskin, who was the only witness. The agreed statement of facts is as follows:
The testimony of Ben Basskin, who was called as a witness for respondent Ben Rubin, was to the effect that he had been served with a summons in a justice of the peace case in which Ben Rubin sued "Ben Bassakin"; that he contested that suit; that he was the same person who was sued in that suit under the name of "Ben Bassakin." The witness further testified that he had a checking account with the garnishee trust company in the name of "B. Basskin."
At the close of all the evidence, the garnishee trust company requested the court to give two declarations of law as follows:
Both declarations of law were refused by the court, garnishee saving its exceptions to such ruling.
On July 29, 1937, the court made a finding and order that the garnishee pay into the registry of the court, on or before September 8, 1937, the sum of $75 with interest at six per cent. from May 27, 1933, failing which judgment would be rendered against garnishee in said sum. On August 2, 1937, the trust company filed a motion to set aside said finding and order and to grant it a new trial. On September 10, 1937, the trust company having failed to pay into court the sum required by the court's order of July 29, 1937, the court entered a judgment in favor of Ben Rubin, as plaintiff, and against the trust company as garnishee in the sum of $94.20 and costs. Thereafter, the trust company filed a motion for a new trial, which being overruled it duly appealed to this court.
As will be observed from the foregoing statement, the controversy between the trust company, as appellant herein, and plaintiff Ben Rubin, as respondent herein, turns upon the spelling of the name of the defendant in the original suit as that name appears in the writ of execution and in the interrogatories served upon the trust company.
The trial judge found, and it is not disputed, that, at the time of the service of the writ of garnishment, the trust company did not have on its books an account in the name of "Ben Bassakin", but that it did have an account on its books at that time under the name "B. Basskin." The trial judge further found, and it is not disputed, that at the time of the service of the writ of garnishment on the garnishee trust company on May 27, 1933, there was a balance to the credit of the account of "B. Basskin" amounting to $92.86; and that several withdrawals were made from said account after the writ of garnishment was served, all upon checks signed "B. Basskin." The amounts and dates of such withdrawals are not disputed. After stating the facts above referred to, the trial judge, in his finding and order, said: `
The trial judge then set forth in his finding and order a rather extended list of cases decided by the courts of this and other states illustrating the application of the rule of idem sonans. The list of cases concludes with a quotation from the case of Little et al. v. Browning et al., 287 Mo. 278, 230 S.W. 92, in which the Supreme Court held that, although the summons and return of process in that case gave the name of the defendant as "Martha J. Hornback", whereas her name was "Hornbeck", she was nevertheless required to take...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bulkley v. Thompson, 21002.
...for plaintiff's evidence to establish that suit was filed by A.H. Bulkley within one year from the date of his wife's death. Rubin v. Bassakin, 130 S.W. 2d 224; 45 C.J., page 383, Names, Sec. 19; Secs. 57, 81, Civil Code of Missouri. (3) Plaintiff's Instruction No. 4 was properly given. Ada......
-
Bulkley v. Thompson
... ... suit was filed by A. H. Bulkley within one year from the date ... of his wife's death. Rubin v. Bassakin, 130 S.W ... 2d 224; 45 C. J., page 383, Names, Sec. 19; Secs. 57, 81, ... Civil Code of Missouri. (3) Plaintiff's Instruction No. 4 ... ...
- Rubin v. Bassakin
-
State v. Stanback
...(McAnarney-McAnerney ); Bulkley v. Thompson, 240 Mo.App. 588, 211 S.W.2d 83 (1948) (Bulkley-Buckley ); and Rubin v. Bassakin, 130 S.W.2d 224 (Mo.App.1939) (Bassakin-Basskin ). (The Bassakin court cites an additional 15 cases in which the rule was invoked. Id. at We therefore hold that becau......