Wilson v. Columbia Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 20847,20848,20882.,s. 20847 |
| Parties | WILSON v. COLUMBIA CASUALTY CO. (two cases). SAME v. HANRATTY, Sheriff. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
WILSON
v.
COLUMBIA CASUALTY CO. (two cases).
SAME
v.
HANRATTY, Sheriff.
Nos. 20847, 20848, 20882.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
March 28, 1928.
Error to Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County.
Action by Ruth Boughton and others against Addison R. Wilson and the Columbia Casualty Company. Judgment for plaintiffs was paid by the Casualty Company, which was subrogated to plaintiffs' rights, against defendant Wilson. Order for defendant Casualty Company in aid of excution, and judgment finding defendant in contempt of court were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and application for writ of habeas corpus by defendant Wilson in Court of Appeals, directed to E. J. Hanratty, Sheriff, was denied, and defendant Wilson separately brings error to each of said orders and judgments. Affirmed.-[By Editorial Staff.]
This case involves three separate error proceedings, which arose out of a single action, as follows:
An action was brought by Ruth Boughton and others against Addison R. Wilson and the Columbia Casualty Company, for money only, in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, in which judgment was rendered against both defendants in the sum of $2,794 and costs. The action arose out of a contract whereby Wilson had agreed to construct a house for the plaintiffs. Subsequent to the rendering of the judgment, the Columbia Casualty Company paid the judgment and obtained an order from the court of common pleas subrogating the casualty company to all the rights and remedies which the plaintiffs had against the defendant Addison R. Wilson, principal debtor, at the time payment was made by the casualty company, to wit, February 19, 1927.
Later Wilson received $2,000 in settlement of another separate action. He paid $750 of this amount to his attorney and retained $1,250, which he placed in the hands of his brother in Washington, Pa. The sum of $1,250, which he placed in his brother's hands is the sum of money in controversy in these three error proceedings.
The Columbia Casualty Company instituted order in aid proceedings in the original action brought by Ruth Boughton and others against Wilson and the casualty company, and applied for an order requiring Wilson to apply the sum received in settlement of the independent action in payment of the judgment in the instant case. The court, after examination of the judgment debtor and the evidence of the various witnesses, found that ‘said Addison R. Wilson, owns and has the absolute control and disposition of the sum of twelve hundred and fifty dollars ($1,250.00), which he wrongfully and fraudulently has sent out of the state of Ohio with intent to prevent the same being applied on the judgment in the foregoing action, and should be applied on said judgment, and said application is therefore granted,’ and ordered the defendant Addison R. Wilson to pay over the aforesaid sum to the sheriff of Cuyahoga county, Ohio, to be applied on said judgment. Error proceedings were then instituted to this finding and order made in the court of common pleas.
Subsequently, charges in contempt, with an application for an order to answer and show cause, were filed in the same proceeding, and the court found Wilson in contempt of court and committed him to jail until he should comply with the order above quoted. Error proceedings were instituted to the finding and order of the court upon the citation for contempt.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus was then filed by Wilson in the Court of Appeals. All of these three proceedings were argued together in the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals sustained the decision of the court of common pleas in both of the error proceedings, and denied the application for the writ of habeas corpus. Error proceedings were then instituted to all three of the decisions of the Court of Appeals. The error proceedings in the habeas corpus action constitute case No. 20882. The error proceedings to the order in aid of execution constitute case No. 20847, and the error proceedings to the finding of the court that Wilson was in contempt of court, and its order in pursuance of that finding, constitute case No. 20848.
Motions to certify the record were allowed in cases No. 20847 and No. 20848, and No. 20882 is here upon error proceedings to the habeas corpus action filed as an original action in the Court of Appeals.
Further facts are stated in the opinion.
Marshall, C. J., dissenting.
To continue reading
Request your trial