Wolf v. Cozzens
| Decision Date | 30 June 1836 |
| Citation | 4 Mo. 431 |
| Parties | WOLF v. COZZENS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
GEYER, for Plaintiff in Error. The plaintiff in error contends: 1st. That the record of the proceedings and judgment in the case of Seeligson against Louis Leo Wolf defendant, and Brown Cozzens garnishee, is not competent evidence in this case--1 Phil. Ev. 222; 1 Starkie, 181.
2. Upon the evidence as given, the verdict ought to have been for the plaintiff, and therefore the court erred in refusing a new trial.
SPALDING, for Defendant in Error. The only points arising here are, 1st. Was the record rightly admitted in evidence? 2nd. Was the motion for a new trial properly overruled?--which motion assigns as reasons that the verdict was against law and evidence, that the record was improperly admitted, and that the court in finding for the said Cozzens on the evidence given. 1st. The record was rightly admitted--I hardly know on what ground it can be contended that the record was not admissible at all. For if a recovery against a garnishee can protect him in any case, it would seem certain that the record of such recovery must at least form part of the evidence on which that defense would rest. In this case, this record was given in evidence, together with other evidence, which showed that the debt condemned in the attachment case, was the same as the one sued for before the justice. The claimant of the debt should have interpleaded. Old Rev. Code, p. 149, § 10, and pamphlet Dec. Sup. Court, printed 1836, p. 38 and 39. 2nd. On the point of new trial, the only other question was, whether the debt attached, was the same sued on in this action. The proof was sufficient to establish the identity.
Joseph Leo Wolf, for the use of Wilson Primm, sued Brown Cozzens before a justice of the peace on a promissory note, and judgment being given against him, he appealed to the Circuit Court. On a trial in that court, Cozzens prevailed, and Wolf brings the suit here on a writ of error. It appears on the bill of exceptions, that one Moses Seeligson brought an action in the Circuit Court, St. Louis county, against Louis Leo Wolf, and he not being found, Cozzens was summoned to answer as garnishee. Judgment being first had against Louis Leo Wolf, Cozzens answered to interrogatories filed, that he had executed to Louis Leo Wolf his note for $240, that in a few days after the execution of his note as aforesaid, the said Louis came to him with the said instrument of writing, and read from the back of it an assignment thereof to Joseph Leo Wolf, but did not let the affiant take it to look at it; he read no date to the assignment, but told the garnishee he had assigned it to his brother. Some few days after, Wilson Primm showed him the said instrument indorsed a second time to said Primm, Primm demanded payment, and the affiant Cozzens, executed in favor of said Joseph Leo Wolf, his four several promissory notes, for sixty dollars, payable at different times thereafter, and Primm delivered up to him his note for $240, above mentioned,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martindale v. Hudson
...I. The recovery against defendant as garnishee was a good bar to the action, and record should have been admitted in evidence. (Wolf v. Cozzens, 4 Mo. 431.) And so if the note had been settled upon transfer, such settlement was a good bar. II. The answer charges that the transfers were frau......
- Wilkson v. Blackwell