Wilson v. Sawyer

Decision Date04 June 1928
Docket Number20
Citation6 S.W.2d 825,177 Ark. 492
PartiesWILSON v. SAWYER
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Izard Circuit Court; John C. Ashley, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Harris Hanley & Wilson, for appellant.

Walter M. Purvis, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH J.

Appellant brought suit against Thomas M. Sawyer, a disabled World War Veteran, and, as an incident thereto, sued out a writ of garnishment against the Bank of Melbourne and J. W. Hall. The bank answered that it had on deposit the sum of $ 681.39 belonging to Sawyer, which had been deposited for his benefit in the name of J. W. Hall as clerk of the probate court. Hall answered that he had on deposit $ 681.39 with the bank, and a note for $ 500 and another for $ 100 which had been taken by plaintiff as guardian for Sawyer, pursuant to § 5059, C. & M. Digest, all of which had been turned over to him by plaintiff when plaintiff's final settlement of his guardianship of Sawyer had been approved and plaintiff discharged as guardian, and that he held the notes to and for the use of Sawyer.

A motion was filed to quash the garnishment, upon the ground that the money which had come into Wilson's hands, a portion of which he had invested in the notes, had been paid to him by the United States Government on account of the disability of his ward. In support of this motion Wilson was called as a witness, and testified that letters of guardianship were issued to him in 1924, and that he had received from the Veterans' Bureau, on account of his ward, the sum of $ 3,280, and that he had made full and final settlement of his guardianship and had been discharged, and had paid the balance found by the probate court to be in his hands to J. W. Hall, clerk of the court, under the order of the court, for the account of his former ward.

Upon hearing this testimony the court quashed the garnishment, and in so doing declared the law as follows:

"The court will dissolve this attachment. I do not think these funds can be attached until they come into the hands of Tom Sawyer, and they have never been in his hands. They are money derived from the Federal Government, and, under the Federal laws, those funds cannot be garnished until they come into the hands of the party entitled to receive, under the law. These funds were paid by the United States Government to Mr. Wilson, as guardian. He has been discharged, and the funds have been paid over to the clerk of the probate court, and the funds are now in the hands of the register of the court, with instructions to turn them over to Tom Sawyer, and, until they come into the hands of Tom Sawyer, they cannot be attached. The petition to quash the garnishment and release the funds will be sustained."

The court was correct in the declaration of law made, except that the funds were not subject to seizure even after they had come into the hands of the ward.

In 28 C. J., page 187, § 227, of the chapter on Garnishment, it is said: "But, after a pension or bounty has been paid to, and received by, the beneficiary, it is subject to garnishment in the hands of a third person to the same extent as other property, unless exempted by statute."

The funds here involved are exempted by ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • State, ex rel. Sorensen v. Security Bank of Creighton
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1931
    ...policy and not as heirs at law. Cassarello v. United States, 271 F. 486; In re Cross' Estate, 152 Wash. 459, 278 P. 414; Wilson v. Sawyer, 177 Ark. 492, 6 S.W.2d 825; Perrydore v. Hester, 215 Ala. 268, 110 So. 403, 405; Tax Commission of Ohio v. Rife, 119 Ohio St. 83, 162 N.E. 390; Wanzel's......
  • State ex rel. Sorensen v. Sec. Bank of Creighton
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1931
    ...and not as heirs at law. Cassarello v. United States (D. C.) 271 F. 486;In re Cross' Estate, 152 Wash. 459, 278 P. 414;Wilson v. Sawyer, 177 Ark. 492, 6 S.W.(2d) 825;Perrydore v. Hester, 215 Ala. 268, 110 So. 403, 405;Tax Commission of Ohio v. Rife, 119 Ohio St. 83, 162 N. E. 390;In re Wanz......
  • Wilson v. Gardner's Estate (In re Gardner)
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1936
    ...hands or on deposit in a bank. Citing McIntosh v. Aubrey, supra; State v. Shawnee County Com'rs, 132 Kan. 233, 294 P. 915;Wilson v. Sawyer, 177 Ark. 492, 6 S.W.(2d) 825;Surace v. Danna, 248 N.Y. 18, 24, 25, 161 N.E. 315. Be that as it may, we think it very clear that there was an end to the......
  • Bryant v. Carrier
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 28, 1938
    ... ... Cf. McIntosh v. Aubrey, supra; State ... ex rel. Smith v. Board of Com'rs of Shawnee County, ... 132 Kan. 233, 294 P. 915; Wilson v. Sawyer, 177 Ark ... 492, 6 S.W.2d 825, and Surace v. Danna, 248 N.Y. 18, ... 24, 25, 161 N.E. 315. Be that as it may, we think it very ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT