Case Name: ROBESON ET AL. VS. MISSISSIPPI AND ALABAMA RAIL ROAD COMPANY ET AL.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1839-05
Citations: 13 La. 465
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROBESON ET AL. VS. MISSISSIPPI AND ALABAMA RAIL ROAD COMPANY ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 465–472

Head Matter:
ROBESON ET AL. VS. MISSISSIPPI AND ALABAMA RAIL ROAD COMPANY ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE PARISH COURT, FOR THE PARISH AND CITY OF NEW-ORLEANS.
Where garnishees were asked if they had property of the defendant in their possession, and whether it was worth a certain sum, and they answered categorically, “Yes, one hundred and four bales of cotton:” HeZd, that they could show, when called on by the plaintiff to pay the proceeds over, in satisfaction of his judgment against the defendant, that the cotton was previously attached in their hands, at the suit of other creditois.
Guslis, J., dissenting. — Where garnishees, by their answer, acknowledge that they have property in their possession belonging to the defendant sufficient to satisfy the plaintiffs’ debt, they should not he allowed after-wards to defeat this acknowledgment, when called on to pay the plaintiffs’ judgment, by pleading that the property had been previously attached.
This suit commenced by attachment.. The plaintiffs filed their petition the 5th July, 1838, claiming judgment for the sum of two thousand dollars, and interest. They ask, that Lyons, Harris & Co., and others, be ordered to answer on oath the annexed interrogatories, and condemned, as garnishees in solido, to pay the amount of the plaintiff’s demand.
Interrogatory. — “Had you, at the time of service of this interrogatory upon you, or have you had ai. any time since, in your possession, or under your control, any moneys, cotton, &c., or property belonging to the defendant 1 If yea, please specify and detail the same fully and particularly, with the value thereof, and whether the same amounts to the sum of two thousand dollars, with interest, &c.”
The sheriff returned, that he had duly served the attachment on the garnishees, and attached in their hands properly of every kind belonging to the defendant, to an amount sufficient to satisfy the writ, &c.
On the 11th July, Lyons, one of the firm of Lyons, Harris & Co., on the part of the firm, answered, “ Yes, one hundred and four bales of cottofi.”
The other garnishees gave detailed and full answers.
The defendant pleaded a general denial, and the plaintiff had judgment against him for the sum claimed.
In January, 1839, the plaintiff look a rule on the garnishees, Lyons, Harris & Co., to show cause why they should not be condemned in solido to pay to the plaintiff the amount of their judgment against the defendants: to which they replied, that the cotton attached in their hands in this suit had been previously attached at the suit of S. W. Oakey & Co., by whose request and assent it had been sold, and the proceeds, amounting to five thousand one .hundred and eighty-seven dollars, was in their hands, subject lo such attachments as might be adjudged entitled to it.
On hearing the parties, the parish judge decided, that, as the property in the hands of the garnishees had been pre- ' viously attached in another suit pending in the district court, the rule must be discharged; reserving to the plaintiffs their right of proceeding in said court, contradictorily with the attaching creditors.
The plaintiffs appealed.
I. W. Smith, for the plaintiffs and appellants.
1. The plaintiffs interrogated the garnishees on facts and articles: “ Have you property in y.onr possession, or under your control, belonging to the bank, and, if so, is it worth two thousand dollars, interest, &c. V’ They answer, “Yes; one hundred and four bales of cotton.” When ruled to show cause why they should not be condemned to pay the two .thousand dollars, they admit the receipt of five thousand one hundred and eighty-seven dollars and sixty-one cents for the cotton. In substance, they plead, in avoidance of the legal effect of their answer on oath, that the proceeds of the cotton are not under their control or in their possession absolutely, but that they possess and control them at the pleasure of the District Court,.which had. attached them. In their answer under oath, they clearly had the right to state what raaner of possession and control they had, to what restrictions they were subjected, with what privileges the ownership of the cotton by the. bank was burdened.
%. The right of the plaintiffs against the garnishees was only inchoate when the answer under oath was filed. It was perfected by the judgment against the'bank. When the plaintiffs chose to exercise it, it was too late for the garnishees to divest them of it.
3. The 'garnishees were bound by their, answer made under oath. They cannot add to or change the legal effect of that answer by any subsequent act of theirs. Their answer to the rule is, in effect, an amendment of then-original answer, setting up a defence not mentioned iu the original answer. 5 Louisiana Reports, 86 ; 8 Ibid, 160.
4. The garnishees well knew, when they answered the interrogatories, if there was a previous attachment levied. Why did they not inform the plaintiffs of itl Why suffer ^e plaintiffs to prosecute their suit to judgment before alleging a defence, which renders nugatory their answer under oath 1 Can they now take advantage of their own wrong ?
Strawbridge and L. Peirce, for the defendant and garnishees.

Opinion:
Rost, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case, the commercial firm of Lyons, Harris & Co. were cited as garnishees, and asked to answer on oath whether they had in their possession, or under their control, property belonging to defendants, and whether it was worth the amount for which attachment had issued, to wit, two thousand dollars. The garnishees answered in these words : "Yes; one hundred and four bales of cotton." Judgment was rendered against the defendants, and the plaintiffs, finding some previous liens on the property attached, took a rule upon the garnishees to show cause why they should not be condemed in solido to pay to the said plaintiffs the amount of the judgment rendered in their favor. The garnishees showed for cause, that the cotton attached in their hands had previously been attached at the suit of S. W. Oakey & Company, by whose request the same had been sold, and that the proceeds remained in their hands, payable to such of the attaching creditors as may be entitled thereto. The court, after having discharged the rule reserved to the plaintiffs their right to proceed contradictorily with the other attaching creditors. The plaintiffs appealed.
The plaintiffs do not complain of the sale of the cotton by the garnishees; and they now stand in the situation in which they would be if it had been sold by order of the court, on their application, and that of the other attaching creditors.
We are of opinion, that the district judge took a correct view of the rights of the parties to this controversy, and that the judgment ought to be affirmed.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.