Tressler v. Lunt
| Decision Date | 05 January 1932 |
| Citation | 158 A. 709,35 Del. 78 |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
| Parties | ANANIAS TRESSLER, Plaintiff Below, Plaintiff in Certiorari, v. DUDLEY C. LUNT, Garnishee of Nelson Clough, Defendant Below, Defendant in Certiorari |
Superior Court for New Castle County, No. 188, September Term, 1931.
Writ of Certiorari on a judgment rendered by a Justice of the Peace.
The record showed that the plaintiff, Tressler, had recovered a judgment against Nelson Clough for the sum of sixty dollars and costs in an action before Barnet Gluckman, a Justice of the Peace, in the City of Wilmington; and that a writ of fieri facias with a clause of attachment inserted therein had been subsequently issued on that judgment and served on Dudley C. Lunt as garnishee.
It also appeared that Lunt was an attorney-at-law practicing in the City of Wilmington and that after being served with process he had appeared before Mr. Gluckman and answered that he owed Clough the sum of $ 36.10 which he had collected from the Superior Equipment Company while acting as attorney for Clough.
It further appeared that the amount collected by Lunt for Clough represented wages due him from that company.
After hearing the case Mr. Gluckman entered a judgment discharging Lunt, the garnishee, from any further liability on account of the attachment.
In considering the validity of this judgment two questions were argued before the Court:
1. Whether under the decisions of this state money belonging to his client could be attached in the hands of an attorney-at-law.
2. Whether the money in question could still be considered as wages after it had been collected by Lunt acting as attorney for Clough, and, therefore, whether it was exempt from attachment, as such, under the provisions of Section 4331, Revised Code 1915.
The judgment against Ananias Tressler and in favor of Dudley C Lunt, garnishee of Nelson Clough, is reversed.
Howard Duane for plaintiff.
Joseph A. L. Errigo for defendant.
Garnishment is a proceeding by which the plaintiff in an action at law, attempts to subject to the payment of his demand against the defendant, money or property of the defendant in the hands of a third person. It is a warning to the party upon whom it is served not to pay any money or deliver any property to the defendant, that he has in his possession as the money or property of the defendant, but to appear and answer the plaintiff's action. National Bank of W. & B. v. Furtick, 2 Marv. (16 Del.) 35, 42 A. 479, 44 L. R. A. 115, 69 Am. St. Rep. 99; Woolley on Del. Practice, Vol. 2, § 1177.
A lawyer has always been considered an officer of the Court, and, as such, subject to the control of the Court in many instances; and especially when he has in his hands money or property belonging to his client.
The weight of authority in this country, however, has long held that he does not hold his client's funds or property as an agent of the law within the rule exempting property in custodia legis from garnishment; but that he is the agent of the debtor whose money or property he may have in hand and is liable to garnishment process therefor. Mann v. Buford, 3 Ala. 312, 37 Am. Dec. 691; Ayer v. Brown, 77 Me. 195; Riley v. Hirst, 2 Pa. 346; Carr v. Benedict, 48 Ga. 431; Crain v. Gould, 46 Ill. 293; Thayer v. Sherman, 12 Mass. 441.
In Riley v. Hirst, above cited, the Court said: The Delaware case of Johns, Garnishee of Thomas v. Allen, 5 W.W. Harr. 419, is cited by the authorities as being opposed to this view. An examination of the case does not clearly disclose just what it stands for, but there is an impression among some members of the bar of this state that it stands for the proposition that money or property cannot be attached in the hands of a lawyer. The headnote to the case reads as follows: "Money of a client cannot be attached in the hands of his attorney in court." The report of the case states that at the instance and with the consent of Johns, a rule was laid on him to show cause why the sum of $ 52.70 in his hands as attorney of Thomas, should not be paid over. Johns made affidavit to the effect that the money had been paid to him as attorney for Thomas in a suit. That since it had been paid to him an attachment had been laid in his hands at the suit of Allen v. Thomas, requiring him to appear and answer as the garnishee of Thomas.
After setting forth the argument of Thomas F. Bayard, Esq., against the rule, the following statement appears: "The Court, after consideration, but without delivering an opinion, made the rule absolute." The only thing in the report of the case to clearly indicate that it decided that money or property cannot be attached in the hands of an attorney, is the above-mentioned headnote.
In the case of Plunkett v. Le Huray, 4 Harr. 436, the Court held that a trustee could not be summoned to answer as a garnishee of his cestui que trust, but that has no bearing on the case now under consideration.
The case of Garford Motor Truck Co. v. Buckson, 4 W. W. Harr. (34 Del.) 103, 143 A. 410, was one in which the Garford Motor Truck Co. attempted to attach money in the hands of David J. Reinhardt, Esq., an attorney at law, which it claimed had been received by him as attorney for Buckson. Mr. Reinhardt filed an answer admitting that he had received the money for Buckson, but stating that prior to the time the attachment was laid in his hands, he had agreed with Buckson and Dr. Cobb to pay said money to Dr. Cobb in settlement of his bill for services rendered by him as a physician for Buckson. The Court held that the agreement entered into amounted to an assignment the effect of which was to make Mr. Reinhardt liable to Dr. Cobb. Therefore, this case is not an authority for the position taken by the plaintiff in this case. We feel that the position taken by the courts in the states above mentioned is correct, and can see no reason why an attorney should be exempt from attachment process to recover money or property which he has in hand for his client. There are certain well-known duties which every lawyer owes to his client and the courts will exercise control over him in order to insure the performance of those duties.
After those duties have been performed, the relation of a lawyer to his client is that of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial