Wild v. Horst
| Decision Date | 31 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 8339,8339 |
| Citation | 250 So.2d 179 |
| Parties | Willie E. WILD, d/b/a Wild's Insurance Agency, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbert A. HORST and Bank of Commerce and Trust Co., Garnishee, Defendants- Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Fred C. Jackson, St. Francisville, for defendants-appellants.
Karl W. Cavanaugh, Denham Springs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LOTTINGER, SARTAIN and TUCKER, JJ.
The controversy in this case involves the extent of liability of the garnishee, Bank of Commerce and Trust Company, to the judgment creditor, Willie E. Wild. The object of the garnishment was the bank account of the judgment debtor, Wilbert A. Horst.
Horst had paid the sum of $335.00 on a judgment against him in the amount of $798.60, leaving a balance due of $463.60, which is the amount claimed by the creditor against the garnishee.
The pertinent facts are not in dispute. The garnishment petition, citation and interrogatories, showing a claim for $463.60, were served on the garnishee on November 16, 1967. At that time, the bank records showed a balance in Horst's account of $1,570.92, which included a credit for a deposit on November 15 of a check in the amount of $954.10 payable to Horst and drawn by Dunham Materials, Inc., in the Louisiana National Bank. This check is referred to hereinafter as the 'Dunham check'.
After the service of the garnishment papers, the garnishee bank compensated against the account the sum of $244.79 representing the balance due on Horst's delinquent promissory note held by the bank. The bank also paid two checks drawn by Horst and totaling $432.09. The bank thus deducted a total of $676.88 from the account after knowledge of the garnishment claim for $463.60. Except for the Dunham check, Horst's balance in the account would have been $616.82, or $60.06 less than the amount deducted by the bank.
On November 22, the garnishee bank received notice from the drawee bank that Dunham Materials, Inc., had stopped payment on its check to Horst. The garnishee bank then sought to charge back the amount of that check against the account pursuant to a standard agreement or condition between the bank and its depositors that all items deposited are credited to an account subject to final payment in cash or solvent credit. By so doing, of course, the account would be depleted to the prejudice of the rights of the judgment creditor under the garnishment seizure.
On appeal, the judgment creditor does not dispute the right of the bank to compensate against the account for the delinquent promissory note. The bank does not seriously contest its liability for the $432.09 in checks paid after service of the garnishment papers. The primary dispute concerns the right of the bank to charge back the amount of the Dunham check after the seizure by the judgment creditor had been made.
The trial judge held that the bank had allowed Horst to draw against the Dunham check deposit without restriction, relying on the validity and sufficiency of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Bank of Whiting v. Samocki Bros. Trucking Co.
...of the fund, but by the law which defines its liability as such garnishee." Id. at 57, 69 P.2d at 844; see also Wild v. Horst (1971), La.App., 250 So.2d 179 (bank lost right of charge-back as against garnishor when it honored checks and account balance dropped below judgment amount when pay......
-
Packard Management v. Real Key Management, 98-643.
...to apply in the case of garnishment. We do not dispute that compensation is available as a defense to a garnishee. Wild v. Horst, 250 So.2d 179 (La. App. 1 Cir.1971); Arkla, Inc. v. Maddox & May Bros. Casing, 28,081 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/3/96); 671 So.2d 1220; and Gambino v. Culp, 444 So.2d 730......