Winsor v. McLachlan

• Decision Date: 20 June 1895
• Citation: 40 P. 727,12 Wash. 154
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WINSOR v. MCLACHLAN ET AL.

40 P. 727

12 Wash. 154

WINSOR v. MCLACHLAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 20, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.

Action by Thomas Winsor against Charles McLachlan and another, and the North British & Mercantile Insurance Company, of London and Edinburgh, garnishee. From a judgment for plaintiff, the principal defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Lemman & Brady, for appellants.

Winsor, Bush & Morris, for respondent.

GORDON J.

The respondent, Winsor, having obtained a judgment in the superior court for King county against appellants Charles and Matilda McLachlan (husband and wife), thereafter caused a writ of garnishment to be issued against the North British &amp Mercantile Insurance Company, as garnishee, requiring it to answer as to any indebtedness by it owing to defendants. The answer of the garnishee disclosed an indebtedness due appellant Matilda McLachlan in the sum of $661.17, being the amount of loss occasioned by a fire occurring under a policy of insurance issued by it in favor of said appellant, upon household furniture, family wearing apparel, books, jewelry pictures, carpenter's tools, etc. The total amount for which said property was insured was $700, the amount of the loss having been adjusted in said sum of $661.17. The appellants (judgment debtors) also answered claiming that the property so insured was exempt from levy and execution under the laws of the state of Washington, and that the money due appellants from said insurance company was also exempt. Thereafter, by stipulation of counsel in the case, said garnishee paid the amount of its liability under said policy into the registry of the court, and was discharged. The cause was tried by the court without a jury and findings of fact and conclusions of law made and entered, and judgment rendered in favor of respondent, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

This court, in Packing Co. v. Jeffs, 39 P. 962, held that the money paid under an insurance policy on property exempt to a householder, is itself exempt, and appellants rely upon that case for a reversal of this judgment. The statement of facts contains none of the evidence taken below, and we think that the judgment entered in the cause is sustained by the findings. The value of the property so insured is nowhere stated in the answer of appellants to the writ of garnishment; nor is it alleged that the property so insured was all...