Case ID: willson_2/html/0072-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Will-son, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Schmidt & Zeigler v. Stern & Martin et al.
    (No. 1527.)
    Appeal from Washington County.
   Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 91. Jurisdiction; amount in controversy. Wenar & Co., under a void judgment against Schmidt & Zeigler, sued out a garnishment upon Stern & Martin. Judgment was obtained against the garnishees for $99.20, which they paid. Schmidt & Zeigler brought this suit against Stem & Martin, to recover of them $102.20, balance of account alleged to be due by them. Stern* & Martin pleaded in defense the $99.20 paid by them on the garnishment. Held, that the account sued upon, and not the amount of the garnishment judgment, was the amount in controversy, and that this court had jurisdiction of the appeal.

§ 92. Non-resident of state; judgment in personam against. Schmidt & Zeigler were non-residents of this state. The judgment obtained against them by Wenar & Co. was obtained upon service had in accordance with articles 1230,1231, 1232 and 1233 of the Revised Statutes. They did not appear and answer in the suit. Held, this was a judgment in personam, against non-residents of the state, obtained without personal service of citation upon them within this state, and without bringing within the control and jurisdiction of the court any property of theirs. Whatever views may at one time have been entertained by the courts of this state, as to the validity of such a judgment, it is now too well settled to admit of controversy, that it is absolutely void, and cannot be the basis of any right. [Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 353; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 545; Laughlin v. La. & N. O. Ice Co. Sup. Ct. La. Dec. 18, 1883; Freeman on Judgments, § 564; W. & W. Con. Rep. § 129.]

January 16, 1884.

§ 93. Garnishment proceeding; must be a valid judgment to support. To authorize a judgment against a garnishee, there must be a valid judgment against the defendant in the original suit. There being no such valid judgment in the original suit in this case, the proceeding by garnishment was void, and the payment of the garnishment judgment by the garnishees is no defense against the demand of appellants in this action.

§ 94. Indemnity bond; garnishee entitled to recover on. Before paying the garnishment judgment, Stern & Martin demanded of, and received from, Wenar & Co., an indemnity bond, conditioned to save them harmless against liability to Schmidt & Zeigler. This bond was pleaded by Schmidt & Zeigler in this suit, and Wenar & Co., and their sureties upon said bond, were made parties to the suit. In the county court it was adjudged that the defense set up by Stem & Martin, of the 'payment of the garnishment judgment, was a. valid defense, and that Schmidt & Zeigler take nothing. Held error. The judgment should have been in favor of Schmidt & Zeigler for their debt, and in favor of Stern & Martin against Wenar & Co., and their sureties on the indemnity bond, for the amount paid on the garnishment judgment, together with interest and costs.

Reversed and remanded.