Case ID: la_139/html/0450-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROVOSTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(71 South. 763)
    No. 20447.
    BRINSON et al. v. SCOTT.
    (April 24, 1916.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Appeal and Error <&wkey;150(6) — Right op Review — Persons Aggrieved — Creditor op .Person Not Party.
    Where a judgment against a garnishee is appealed from by persons who, although appealing as creditors of defendants, argue in the Supreme Court that they are creditors, not of defendants, but of the succession of the deceased husband of one of the defendants and father of the other defendants, and that the garnished funds belong to the succession, and nothing shows that the funds received by the garnishee as belonging to defendants did not belong to them, the appeal will be dismissed, since appellants have no pecuniary interest in the matter.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. S§ 944 945; Dee. Dig. <&wkey; 150(6).]
    Appeal from Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington; Joseph B. Lancaster, Judge.
    Action by Theodric A. Brinson and another against Mrs. Letha L. Scott, individually and as tutrix of the minor heirs of George A. Scott, deceased, in which judgment was rendered against defendant in both capacities, and notice of execution and garnishment was served on the Commercial Bank of Bogalusa, W. L. Young, State Bank Examiner, and another. From a judgment againsf the garnishee, W. B. Aycock and another appeal, claiming to be- creditors of defendant.
    Dismissed.
    Miller, Miller & Fletchinger, of New Orleans, for appellants Aycock and Williamson. St. Clair Adams, of New Orleans, for appellee Commercial Bank. Benj. Moore Miller, of Covington, .for appellees Brinson and others.
   PROVOSTY, J.

Garnishment proceedings having been issued in this suit, and judgment rendered against the garnishee, the present appeal is from that judgment. It is by persons who in the petition for the appeal alleged themselves to be creditors of the defendants, but who now in this court no longer so pretend, but argue that they are creditors of the succession of George Scott, the deceased husband of one of the defendants, Mrs. Letha L. Scott, and the father of the other defendants, and that the funds in the hands of the garnishee belong in reality to the said succession.

The funds were received by the garnishee as belonging to the minors, and nothing shows that they did not so belong. The appellants, therefore, who are not creditors of the minors, have no pecuniary interest in tli’e matter, and, as a consequence, the motion which has been made to dismiss the appeal on that ground must be sustained.

Appeal dismissed.