Case Name: Kiggins v. Woodke
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1887-10-25
Citations: 78 Iowa 34
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kiggins v. Woodke.
Judges: Robinson, J., having been of counsel in this case, took no part in its decision.
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 34–37

Head Matter:
Kiggins v. Woodke.
1. Garnishment: unwarranted judgment on special verdict. The defendant was sought to be held as garnishee on the ground that he had in his possession certain property of the principal debtor. Defendant, in the issue joined and tried, denied that he had, at or after the time of the service of the notice of garnishment upon him, any property of the principal debtor in his possession. The jury rendered a special verdict merely, but did not find that defendant ever had the property in his possession or under his control, and there was no evidence that he did at the time of the service of the notice or subsequently. Held that a judgment for plaintiff on the special verdict was without warrant. If the evidence showed a mere right of possession in defendant, that was not sufficient. (See Smalley v. Miller, 71 Iowa, 90.)
2: Appeal: foundation : raising question below. Where a question is raised in the court below on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the motion is overruled, it need not be again raised on motion for a new trial, in order to entitle the party to an appeal.
' Appeal from Buena Vista District Court. — TIon. Lot Thomas, Judge.
Filed, October 25, 1887.
Proceeding in garnishment. The defendant, Woodke, was garnished upon an execution issued upon a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff against J. Gf. Baumer. Woodke answered, denying that he owed Baumer, and denying that he had any property in his possession or under his control belonging to Baumer. The plaintiff then filed a pleading controverting Woodke’s answer. In it he averred that at the time Woodke was garnished he had in his possession certain hotel furniture belonging to the execution debtor. The garnishee took issue with the plaintiff. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant garnishee appeals.
Goldsmith & Hart, for appellant.
Robinson & Milchrist, for appellee.
[Filed,- June 1, 1889.]

Opinion:
Adams, C. J.
The jury rendered a special verdict merely, and the court rendered judgment thereon for three hundred and eleven dollars, being the amount which the jury found to be the value of certain hotel furniture. The jury, however, did not find that P. Woodke ever had the property in his possession or under his control, and there is no evidence that he did at the time of the service of notice or subsequent thereto. The plaintiff's theory, as shown both in his pleading filed and by the argument of his counsel, was that Woodke made a pretended purchase of the property, but without consideration paid or agreed to be paid, and that the pretended purchase is void. But this might be conceded without .rendering Woodke liable to be charged as garnishee. Woodke's mere pretended purchase without consideration did not of itself transfer the possession, nor give even a right of possession. To j ustify charging Woodke, it should have appeared that the property was in his possession or under his control. Woodke was a witness upon the stand, and testified that the property had remained continuously in the hotel in possession of Baumer, and the jury did not find to the contrary. If Woodke is compelled to pay the judgment rendered against him as garnishee, he must, so far as the case shows, pay it at his loss. The case comes substantially within the ruling in Smalley v. Miller, 71 Iowa, 90. There being nothing in the special verdict or evidence which justified charging the garnishee,, we think that .the court erred in'rendering judgment against him.
Reversed.