Wright v. Dougherty

• Citation: 115 N.W. 908,138 Iowa 195
• Parties: WRIGHT & TAYLOR, Appellee, v. M. P. DOUGHERTY, ET AL., Appellants. STEUBEN COUNTY WINE CO., Appellee, v. M. P. DOUGHERTY, ET AL., Appellants
• Decision Date: 10 April 1908
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

115 N.W. 908

138 Iowa 195

WRIGHT & TAYLOR, Appellee, v. M. P. DOUGHERTY, ET AL., Appellants.

STEUBEN COUNTY WINE CO., Appellee, v. M. P. DOUGHERTY, ET AL., Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 10, 1908

Appeals from Superior Court of Oelwein.-- HON.E. L. ELLIOTT Judge.

THESE cases are substantially alike in their facts, and they have been submitted together, to be disposed of in one opinion. The facts will be stated in the opinion. In each case John Harrington intervened, and on his death, pending the trial James Harrington, executor of his estate, was substituted. In each case there was judgment in the court below in favor of the plaintiff, and therefrom the defendant and intervener appealed.-- Reversed.

Reversed.

Loren Risk, E. J. O'Connor, M. J. Wade and Jay Cook, for appellants.

Guy W. Backus, for appellee Wright & Taylor.

G. H. Phillips, Ainsworth & Estey, and D. W. Clements, for appellee Steuben County Wine Company.

OPINION

BISHOP, J.

The material facts are not in dispute. The defendant Dougherty having been indicted by the grand jury of Fayette county and held to bail in the sum of $ 1,000, there was deposited with J. W. Winston, clerk of the district court, in lieu of a bail bond, the sum of $ 1,000 in cash. The respective plaintiffs in these actions are judgment creditors of said Dougherty, and on executions issued they caused Winston to be garnished. Upon being called to answer Winston thus deposed: "I have in my possession $ 1,000 case, appearance bond in case of State of Iowa v. M. P. Dougherty." John Harrington appeared in the garnishment proceedings and filed a pleading setting up the fact of the indictment of Dougherty and the order for bail in the sum of $ 1,000. The pleading then continues: "That on December 2, 1904, the said John Harrington put into the hands of C. L. Culver, sheriff of said county, $ 1,000 as bail for said Dougherty, by whom the said money was turned over to said Winston, clerk; and that the same is now, and has at all times been, the sole property of said Harrington, the said Dougherty having no right of ownership therein." It is then alleged that the indictment proceedings against Dougherty have been dismissed, and the prayer is that the money so in the hands of the district court clerk be ordered turned over to said Harrington. Dougherty also filed a pleading in which he disclaimed ownership of said money, and declared that the deposit thereof by Harrington was the act of a friend, without intention of making a loan thereof to him (Dougherty), or otherwise parting with title to the money. As against these pleadings the respective plaintiffs interposed demurrers, and in each case the same was sustained; and, defendant and intervener Harrington electing to stand on their pleadings, judgment was entered in each case in favor of the plaintiff therein.

The field of inquiry is limited, and the precise question would seem to be fairly stated thus: Where money is deposited with the clerk of the court by a friendly third person, the object being simply to secure the release from custody of a defendant held to answer to an indictment, does such money become the property of the indictment defendant from the time of the deposit to the extent and in the sense that the same becomes subject to seizure in satisfaction of the demands of his judgment creditors? In support of the judgments entered below, counsel for the appellees insist that the question should have an affirmative answer -- not, as we understand because of any rule existing at the common law, but in virtue of the provisions of the statute of this...