Case ID: cin-sup-ct-rep_2/html/0056-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hagans, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Special Term,
    
    
      January, 1871.]
    S. Sensheimer, v. S. Huttenbauer.
    Garnishees answered, that they owed the defendant nothing and had no property belonging to him; but that defendant had held their note but had, as he alleged, transferred it to another person, which plaintiff disputes. On motion to make that other person a party :
    
      Held, that the action provided in section 218 of the Oode is the plaintiff’s remedy, when he is not satisfied with the answer of the garnishees.
    
      Wolff, for plaintiff.
    
      Simon $ Heinsheimer, for defendant.
   Hagans, J.

This action is founded on certain contracts and promissory notes. An attachment was sued out, and Messrs. Hoffmann Bros, served as garnishees. They answer that they neither have any property belonging to the defendant, nor owe him any money. It was stated that defendant was the holder of the promissory note of Hoffmann Bros., and that he alleged that before service of process on them it had been transferred to one Joseph Billingheimer.

The plaintiff now moves to make Billingheimer a party defendant, and alleges that Billingheimer does not own the note, but that it still belongs to defendant.

The plaintiff is evidently not satisfied with the answer of the garnishee. Section 218 of the Code provides a remedy for him, by way of action in his own name as in other cases. And it can.make no difference that the plaintiff seeks to make Billingheimer the alleged owner of the note a party, or that Billingheimer should himself ask to be made a party defendant. * In neither case ought the motion to be granted. Vallette v. Kentucky Trust Co. Bank, 2 Handy, 1; Harrison v. King, 9 Ohio St. 388.

Motion overruled.