Case ID: ala_1/html/0134-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GOLDTHWAITE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lewis v. Sheffield & Co.
    When a garnishee brings money, and other effects in his hands into court, which he deposites there, and denies all indebtedness to the defendants; after his discharge from the garnishment, he is not a proper party to sue out a writ of error, if the court makes an improper disposition of the money and effects deposited; and a writ sued out by him will be dismissed-
    Writ of error to the County Court of Mobile County.
    THIS suit was commenced in the County Court of Mobile county, by Sheffield & Co., who sued out a garnishee process against Lewis as a debtor of Dubose & Kibbe, who were judgment debtors to Sheffield & Co. Lewis appeared at the return term of the process, and answered: that Daniel Mayland left in his hands two notes — one signed by J. Hunley, dated, 11th March, 183S, payable on the 15th April, to Gaius Kibbe for live hundred dollars, in Mississippi bank notes — the other, signed by D. B. Rutherford, of the same date, payable to the same person, for seventeen hundred dollars, in Mississippi bank notes. To this was annexed an agreement signed by Kibbe, which declared, that the note might be discharged by paying sixteen hundred dollars in Alabama bank notes, or with fourteen hundred and seventy two dollars in United States bank notes. Lewis gave a receipt for the notes deposited by Mayland, which showed the deposite was made by Gaius Kibbe, described the note, and that the money was to be received for him. Lewis further answered, that he was instructed to send what money should be received, to J. & F. Mayland, of Mobile. Five hundred dollars was received by him for J. Hunley’s note, in Mississippi bank notes. The note on Rutherford, he stated, was then in his possession, and with the money in hand, was deposited in court, and subject to its order. He further answered, that he was garnisheed about the 1st June, 1638. On the 11th of the same month, Daniel Mayland presented to the garnishee, the receipt signed by him, for the notes deposited and requested the notes and money. The receipt was assigned under date of 25th May, 1838, to said Mayland, by Kibbe. The garnishee denied any indebtedness to the defendants in execution, or that he had any effects belonging to them, in his hands. The County Court discharged Lewis on his answer; and the following order was made with respect to the Mississippi money and note deposited in court by the garnishee: — “In this cause the plaintiff who moves the court to direct the Clerk to pay over to the plaintiff the money paid into the court by Lewis, the garnishee, and he further moves the court to direct the Clerk, to deliver to the Sheriff the note of-brought into court by said Lewis, that the same may be sold by the Sheriff, under the rules and regulations regulating Sheriff’s sales, and that the proceeds arising from said sale, be applied to the satisfaction of the judgment in the case of Sheffield & Co. v. Dubose & Kibbe. Whereupon it is considered by the court, that said motion be granted, and that the Clerk of this Court, deliver the monies and note mentioned in said motion to the proper person therein named.”.
    Lewis, the garnishee now prosecutes this writ of error to revise this order.
    Porter, for the plaintiff in error.
    Dunn, contra.
   GOLDTHWAITE, J.

— The writ of error, in this case must be dismissed, as it is improperly sued out by Lewis, who has no interest whatever in revising the order made by the County Court. He cannot be permitted to complain, that the court acted erroneously in disposing of the note and money, which he voluntarily placed at its disposition. If, as supposed by his counsel, he is liable to other persons for the money and note thus voluntarily abandoned, it is not a sufficient reason, at his instance, to revise this order. Whether the order is of such s character as to protect any person who has converted the money or note, is a question which is not presented, and will not therefore be determined.

Let the writ of error be dismissed.