Title: Miller Etc. v. Mercantile Nat. Bk. of Hammond, Etc.

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

234 Ind. 202 (1955)
125 N.E.2d 720
MILLER, D/B/A MIDWEST SUPPLY CO.
v.
MERCANTILE NATIONAL BANK OF HAMMOND, ETC. ET AL.
No. 29,244.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed April 6, 1955.
*203 Owen W. Crumpacker, Theodore M. Gemberling, Lowell E. Enslen and Crumpacker & Shroer, all of Hammond, for appellant.
Galvin, Galvin & Leeney, of Hammond, for appellee Mercantile National Bank of Hammond.
Straley Thorpe and James J. Richard, of Hammond, for intervener-appellee Ortman-Miller Machine Company, Inc.
ACHOR, J.
Appellant filed an unverified complaint for damages against appellee Mercantile National Bank of Hammond, a national banking association, in three paragraphs for (1) breach of contract, (2) slander of business reputation and (3) for conversion of his bank account. Among other things, the complaint recited the fact of extended litigation in the Jasper Circuit *204 Court at Rensselaer, Indiana, between appellant and intervener-appellee Ortman-Miller Machine Company, Inc., with regard to the true ownership of the bank account here in controversy. Thereafter appellant filed a verified petition for temporary injunction, pendente lite, to prevent the appellee bank "from in any way disposing of ... the balance on hand (in the name of appellant) ..." and "from filing an interpleader in the action at Rensselaer, of taking any other such steps with a view toward limiting its liability in this action or depriving the court of jurisdiction to render a full and complete judgment on final hearing."
Appellee Mercantile National Bank filed a demurrer to appellant's petition for a restraining order pendente lite and for grounds of demurrer asserted:
The cause was submitted on the demurrer and arguments were heard. The court sustained the demurrer. The appellant refused to plead further and the court thereupon denied appellant's petition for temporary injunction pendente lite. From the ruling appellant prosecutes this appeal.
The first question presented is: Was demurrer a proper device for testing the legal sufficiency of a petition for temporary injunction pendente lite? Appellant contends that a demurrer is a statutory procedural device for enabling a defendant to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint (Sec. 2-1007, Burns' 1946 Repl.) (Acts 1911, ch. 157, sec. 2, p. 415) or an answer (sec. 2-1014, Burns' 1946 Repl.) (Acts 1881 (Spec. Sess.), ch. 38, sec. 100, p. 240), and that the device is not available *205 of testing the sufficiency of a petition for temporary injunction. Attention is called to the fact that if a demurrer to a complaint is sustained for any of the six statutory grounds, the plaintiff may plead over as of right or amend. Whereas, on the other hand, the proceedings to obtain a temporary injunction pendente lite are summary in nature and contemplate a speedy hearing on notice without resort to the delays of formal pleadings (Secs. 3-2104, 3-2105, Burns' 1946 Repl.). Also, appellant contends that the granting of a temporary injunction does not rest solely upon the allegations of the "petition" but upon a "full consideration by the court of the petition, the affidavits filed in support of the petition," and the evidence adduced at the hearing, that such proceedings are not contemplated, with respect to a demurrer to a complaint or answer.
Although appellant describes his pleading as a "verified petition," it carries with it all the necessary allegations of the complaint (Secs. 3-2103, 3-2104); and although the proceedings are summary in nature, and contemplate a speedy hearing, it is also true that the right to grant an ancillary writ is inherent in the court and rests upon the discretion of the court. We see no logical reason why the propriety of the relief sought cannot be presented to the court by demurrer rather than upon affidavit (Sec. 3-2105, supra), and/or by admission of evidence  if the parties elect so to do, as they did in this case.
The second question presented is: Did the trial court have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of appellant's "petition" for temporary injunction? Title 12, Sec. 91 U.S.C.A., R.S. 5242, provides in part as follows:
That the statute applies to national banks generally was decided in the case of Pacific National Bank v. Mixter (1888), 124 U.S. 721, 724, 726, 727, 728, 8 S. Ct. 718, 719, 720, 721, 31 L. Ed. 567, in which the Supreme Court said:
The decision in the Mixter case, supra, was subsequently approved in the case of Van Reed v. People's National Bank (1905), 198 U.S. 554, 558, 25 S. Ct. 775, 49 L. Ed. 1161. In the latter case the court said:
The court then cites from that case, and continues as follows:
The United States Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretations of acts of Congress.
Our attention has been called to certain cases where temporary injunctions have been issued to a defendant in a fiduciary relationship such as a receiver, trustee or spouse, and also to a national bank with whom the fiduciary has deposited monies belonging to the fiduciary or spouse. In these cases the process did not interfere with the banking functions of other depositors or of the bank as a federal instrumentality. We are not confronted with that situation here and express no opinion as to those cases. Here we are confronted with a direct action against the bank and we consider the Mixter case, supra, and the Van Reed case, supra, as controlling.
The third and final question is: Did appellant's verified "petition" and complaint state facts sufficient to entitle him to the injunctive relief asked? The complaint and petition show that the appellant has a deposit in the appellee bank which the appellee refused to pay him upon his demand. The deposit is not specific property which could be reached by attachment, nor is it the subject of an action for conversion. That action is, therefore, in debt. The appellant refers to an action pending in Jasper Circuit Court and states that the appellee has threatened on an interpleader *209 to pay the amount of the deposit to the Clerk of Jasper Circuit Court. However, appellant presents no facts to show that payment into the Jasper Circuit Court of the amount in controversy or any other disposition of said sum would in any way interfere with his recovery of any judgment he might obtain as a result of the primary action in the court below.
In the case of Koss v. Continental Oil Co. (1944), 222 Ind. 224, 230, 231, 52 N.E.2d 614, this court said:
If the appellee is indebted to appellant for money which it wrongfully withholds, he has an adequate remedy at law. The order of the trial court in denying a temporary injunction pendente lite is therefore sustained.
NOTE.  Reported in 125 N.E.2d 720.