The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-11-01
CAN IT Be ATTACHED?
Money In the Hands Of the Clerk Of
a District Clerk.
Question Argued Before Appellate Division
Of Supreme Court

A very interesting question was sub
mitted to the appellate court today in
the case Of Joseph T.. Allen VS.. Samuel
j. Gerard 1t was whether money in
the hands OF the clerk Of a district
court can be reached by attachment.
Judge Sweetland i'm the Sixth district
court discharged Frederick Rueckert
as garnishee. hence the exceptions
heard by the court today.
William A Morgan, counsel for the
plaintiff. in his brief states that the
money received by the officer from the
sale Of defendants goods in the suit
of Kimball Colwell a. Co. against him
was paid into the hands of Frederick
Rueckert. clerk Of the Sixth district
court, under the provisions OF section
OF chapter 254 of the General Laws,
directing such moneys TO be paid into
the registry of the court Clerk
Rueckert is the person intended by the
statute as the registry of the court IN
the present instance, and after satisfy
ing the execution as clerk was garnish-
able individually in suit by another
person against the defendant. If the
hands of said clerk We're not intended
by registry OF the court then the mon
ey paid said clerk was Illegally paid
and such clerk. holds II in his individual
capacity and is therefore garnishabse.
Mr.. Morgan further argues that an
officer OF the court having funds in his
hands as such officer is not liable To
garnishment. such funs being the Gus
todia legis, but after the object for
which such funds are held has been
satisfied. then such officer holds the
balance of such funds not as an officer
OF the court. but as trustee for the per-
son entitled 10 receive such balance and
in a suit against such person such
trustee may be garnishced. In con-
clusion Il was argued by the same
counsel that II n be held that after the
satisfaction by the clerk Of the eXecu-
tion I'm the suit Of Himball Colwell *
Co. such clerk was not garnishable. in
dividuallv as trustee OF the defendant
al the suit OF another person against
the defendant. such holding must needs
be upon the ground that the balance OF
the funds in the clerks hands continu-
ed 20 be i'm custodia legis. and as the
object OF attachment is TO take the
property OF defendant into the Gus
tody OF the law 80 that he may not re-
move or secrete IT, and so that II may
be applied I'm satisfaction OF such judg-
ment as may be entered against him.
then the funds of tho defendant in this
SUN IN tnf NAnUN vi STU iAu'fkfTI ~
clerk " said court (being still In the
custody of ghe law ought 90 b. subject
30 anv execution issued against the
defendant and p1ypble by said Hueck-
ert as clerk. upon demand. 20 any off,
Ger charged with the service Of such
eyerp'icr
Dexter u. Potter. counsel for the de-
fendant. argued that while money
might be garnishocd in the sheriff's
4.
court. or ~ the l.v. is not the court
itself and nc counsel. found ~ case
where money h been held attach1hlo
in tho hands ~ the clerk ~ the court
We have fouU1 the. following caros
where II IL held that " cannot be Mr.
Potter also urgod thor 80 far ae fho
principle of the law was concerned tho
plaintif could as well have attached
the money IN the hands of Judge Sweet
land and that an order Of the court
was requested 20 get the MONEY I'm
question out Of the hands Of the clerk.