Secor v. Skiles

• Citation: 106 Ind. 98,5 N.E. 897
• Parties: Secor and others v. Skiles and others.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1886
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

106 Ind. 98

5 N.E. 897

Secor and others

v.Skiles and others.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Filed March 31, 1886.

Appeal from Huntington circuit court.

Branyan & Spencer and Kenner & Dille, for appellants.

Trammel & Lucas, for appellees.

Mitchell, J.

This was an attempt, by proceedings supplemental to execution, to subject certain funds, which were in the hands of the clerk of the circuit court of Huntington county, to the satisfaction of an execution issued on a judgment recovered against Skiles in favor of Secor, Berdan & Co. A proceeding in attachment had been commenced against Skiles by the latter, the alleged ground therefor being that Skiles had fraudulently sold his property subject to execution with intent to defraud his creditors. A stock of groceries was seized by the sheriff in pursuance of the command of the writ sued out in the proceedings in attachment. Pending the suit, the stock was sold by the sheriff pursuant to an order of the court. Something over $3,000 was realized on the sale. This amount was paid over to the clerk. The proceedings in attachment were not sustained at the trial. The alleged fraudulent sale was a transfer of the stock by Skiles to Denman. The appellants and other creditors who had filed under the attachment proceeding recovered personal judgments against Skiles; and, upon various judgments and claims in favor of creditors of the latter, all the money in the hands of the clerk, except the sum of about $1,200, had been paid out upon orders drawn by Skiles and Denman. They refused to pay the appellant's judgment, amounting to $437.84. Execution was issued on this judgment, and returned, “No property found.” Thereupon this proceeding was commenced to reach the money remaining in the hands of the clerk. It was alleged that the money belonged to Skiles, and that he unjustly refusedto apply it to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs' judgment. Denman, although nominally a party when this proceeding was commenced, was not summoned and did not appear. He is not named as a party to the amended complaint. Buchanan, the clerk, who was made a party, answered, admitting that the money was in his custody, and asked the order and judgment of the court for his protection. Skiles answered in denial. Upon the hearing the court found that Skiles was not the owner of the money in the clerk's hands. Judgment was given accordingly for the defendants.

The contention here is that the finding and judgment of the court are not...