Case ID: ill_12/html/0172-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Trumbull, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Hodson et al., Appellants, v. Murray McConnel, Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM MORGAN".
    Where an appeal is allowed to sereral defendants, and there is a joinder in the errors assigned by all, it is too late for the appellee to urge the objection, that only -a part of the defendants haVE appealed.
    If a judgment is obtained in the name of one party, but for the use of another, the judgment debtor cannot be garnisheed, nor can the interest of the equitable owner of the judgment be defeated by such proceeding.
    A defendant being notified that a judgment against him belongs to a person other than the plaintiff on the record, he is as much bound by the notice, as if the record stated the judgment to be for the use of such person.
    In June, 1844, McConnel obtained judgment in the Morgan Circuit Court against Hodson, upon which execution was issued and returned no property found. In March, 1849, McConnel filed the requisite affidavit, and obtained an order for summons against R. & J. McDonald as garnishees. In March, 1849, a judgment was entered in the same Court in the name of Hodson against the McDonalds. The proceeding of McConnel was for the purpose of obtaining a judgment against the McDonalds, as garnishees, for the amount of the judgment against them in favor of Hodson. In November, 1849, the McDonalds and Hodson filed their answers in the premises, which are in substance, that several years before that time, the McDonalds became indebted to Hodson, and gave him a note, upon which the judgment in Ms favor was rendered. That before suit was brought against them on the note, it was sold, in payment of a liability of said Hodson, and was delivered to an attorney and held by Mm for the use of the persons in whose favor the liability existed, of which the McDonalds had notice, and that they paid said judgment to said attorney, and that they supposed that satisfaction of the judgment had been regularly entered. That said judgment was satisfied by a new note given to a third party. That the McDonalds had been informed when they gave the second note, that McConnel had obtained an order for garnishee process against them, but did not know the process had been issued, until it was served.
    Upon this answer, McConnel moved for a judgment against the garnishees, and at March term, 1850, Woodson, Judge, presiding, a judgment was rendered in favor of McConnel against the McDonalds, for the amount of the judgment against them in favor of Hodson, and judgment given against Hodson for the costs arising out of the garnishee proceeding. The present appellants excepted, and bring the cause to this Court. The McDonalds did not join with Hodson in the appeal bond. The appellants assign for error, the rendition of the judgment against the McDonalds upon their answers, no issue having been made upon the facts stated in them.
    William Thomas, for Appellants.
    That by the 12th section of the attachment law, R. S., p. 307, it was the right of the appellees, to appear and answer on oath, &c., and upon filing the answer by the garnishees, they should have been discharged from further proceedings; unless the plaintiff alleged that the garnishees had not answered fully, in which case, the Court should have directed an issue, to be tried by a jury, as provided by the 19th section of the attachment law.
    The answers in this case show, that Hodson had parted with his rights and interest in the judgment against the McDonalds, long before the garnishee proceeding wras commenced, and there being no allegation of fraud, the judgment of the Circuit Court should have been for the defendants. Stockton v. Hall, Hardin’s Rep., 160; Keegin v. Dawson, 1 Gilman, 89.
    Hpon the merits and facts of the case, the only question for the decision of the Court, is, with reference to the facts; was Hodson entitled to the money on the judgment against the McDonalds, at the time they were served with notice as garnishees? And with reference to the law, will the Court compel the garnishees to pay money, which it appears, does not belong to the debtor? Dix et al. v. Cobb, 4 Mass., 510; Cushing’s Trustee Process, 73, 74.
    M. McConnel, pro se.
    
    The McDonalds, who are the real parties in interest, have not joined in the appeal, and are not complaining of the judgment.
    Hodson was not summoned in the case and is a mere volunteer, and is not authorized to defend in the Court below, or to appeal to this Court. It is apparent that his debt to appellee has not been paid, and that is the only question he can make; he cannot assign for error the judgment against the garnishees, the judgment against them in his favor, being applied to pay his debt.
    It appears affirmatively, that the judgment against the,garnishees, was in favor of Hodson, and not of any other person, which fact being a matter of record, cannot in a proceeding at law be denied, by going behind the judgment, and showing that it was for the use of another.
   Trumbull, J.

This was a garnishee proceeding, instituted by McConnel, under E. S., ch. 57, §38, against John and Eichard McDonald, as debtors of William Hodson.

The Circuit Court gave judgment against the McDonalds for the sum due from them to Hodson, and against Hodson for costs.

It was objected, upon the argument, that Hodson alone had appealed, and that he could not be permitted to assign errors in the judgment against the McDonalds.

In point of fact, an appeal was allowed to all the defendants in the Court below, and they have all united in the assignment . of errors, to which there is a joinder in error. After this, it is too late for the appellee to insist that only a part of the defendants below had appealed, and it is wholly immaterial, whether Hodson has a right to complain of the judgment against the McDonalds. They certainly have that right, and have availed themselves of it.

The record shows, that the note upon which the judgment in favor of Hodson against the McDonalds was obtained, did not belong to him, but to the heirs of one Swain, for some of whom he was guardian, and to all of whom he was indebted, and that it was delivered to the attorney -who brought suit upon it, to collect for their benefit. Hodson had, therefore, no real interest in the judgment, although it was in his favor, as it had to be, the note never having been assigned. The fact that the record did not state that the judgment was for the use of the heirs of Swain, does not alter the case. The object of making such a statement upon the record, is, to notify the defendant and third persons who the real party in interest is, so that his rights may not be prejudiced by any transaction with the nominal plaintiff. If a defendant has notice that a judgment against him belongs to a person other than the plaintiff upon the record, he is as » much bound by such notice, as if the record stated the judgment to be for the use of such other person.

In this case, the record shows that the McDonalds were informed of the transfer of the note, and that Hodson had no interest in it, before suit upon it was commenced.

The doctrine is well settled, that courts of law will notice and protect the interests of the equitable owners of choses in action, and particularly so, in the matter of a garnishee proceeding, which is of an equitable character.

According to the answers of the garnishees and the admissions of the parties, contained in the record, it is manifest that Hodson was not entitled to the benefit of the judgment in his favor, consequently his creditor, McOonnel, could have no claim upon it.

Judgment reversed.