Case ID: mann-unrep-cas_1/html/0234-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Spencer, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 7604.
    The State ex rel. A. M. Pilcher vs. The Judge of the Fifth District Court.
    The relator brought suit against the New York Life Insurance Company, on a policy on her husband’s life in her favour, and alleging that the Louisina National Bank was in possession of it, joined the bank as defendant, and prayed judgment for the amount of the policy against the insurance company, and for the delivery of the policy against the bank. The insurance company answered that it could not decide between the claimants, tendered the amount, and deposited it in court. The bank claimed the policy and its proceeds. Meanwhile the bank commenced an independent suit on the policy. The two suits were cumulated and there was judgment for Mrs. Pilcher against the insurance company, and for the insurance company against the bank. The bank took a suspensive and the insurance company a devolutive appeal. Mrs. Pilcher issued execution against the company, and also took a rule to shew cause why the money deposited should not be paid to her. The judge quashed the fi. fa. and discharged the rule on the ground that the appeal of the bank suspended the execution of her judgment. The relator applied for a mandamus.
    
    
      Bright for Relatrix. Miller & Miller for Respondent.
   Spencer, J.

It is manifest that in quashing the fi. fa., and discharging the rule the judge did not invade, hinder, or obstruct the jurisdiction of this court. It was an act looking rather to the contrary— to the maintenance rather than to the invasion of our jurisdiction. It is unnecessary to decide what is the effect of the bank’s appeal. It will be time enough to do that when Mrs. Pilcher appeals from the judgment quashing her fi. fa., or when the bank invokes our interposition by prohibition to prevent a disregard of its alleged rights under its appeal.

Writ refused.