Case Name: Papan v. Arkansas Light & Power Company
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1925-11-16
Citations: 169 Ark. 855
Docket Number: 
Parties: Papan v. Arkansas Light & Power Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 169
Pages: 855–858

Head Matter:
Papan v. Arkansas Light & Power Company.
Opinion delivered November 16, 1925.
George C. Lewis, for appellant.
J ohn L. Ingram, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). The judgment of the circuit court was correct. The Blank of Stuttgart & Trust Company sued out a writ of garnishment against Arkansas Light & Power Company in a case wherein it wtas the plaintiff and John A. Papan was the defendant. The garmshment proceedings caused the money owed by the Arkansas Light & Power Company to Papan in the sum of the amount sued for by the Stuttgart Bank & Trust Company to be tied up. This was without the fault of the Arkansas Light & Power Company, for it could do nothing until a decree was rendered in the case of the Bank of Stuttgart & Trust Company against J ohn A. Papan in which it was garnished.
In the meantime John A. Papan recovered judgment against the Arkansas Light & Power Company in the sum of $11,128.94. The judgment recites the issuance of the garnishment in the ciase of wMch the Bank of Stuttgart & Trust Company is plaintiff and John A. Papan is defendant. It then provides that no execution shall issue upon $6,000 of the amount due under the judgment until the dismissal of the said writ of garnishment.
This had the effect to withhold the payment of the $6,000 until the garnishment proceedings were disposed of. No appeal was taken from' this judgment. If Papan thought that that part of the judgment holding up the execution upon $6,000 of the amount recovered -by him was erroneous, he should have prosecuted an appeal to reverse the judgment in this respect. Not having done so, .he can not now complain that it was erroneous, if indeed it was so.
"We dan not perceive how the Arkansas Light & Power Company could have done anything in the garnishment proceedings which would have helped Papan any. If the garnishee had paid the money into the court, it would not have 'been paid to Papan. It would have been held in the registry of the court until the case was disposed of. As soon as the Arkansas Light & Power Company was released in the garnishment proceedings by the-decree of the chancery court, it tendered the amount tied up in the garnishment proceedings to Papan.
Under the terms of 'the judgment in the circuit court Papan had no right to lan execution until the dismissal of the writ of garnishment. It was his duty to have accepted the $6,000 in full payment of his judgment, and under the circumstances of the case he was not entitled to an execution against the Arkansas Light & Power Company for the interest claimed by him.
- The -circuit court had inherent jurisdiction over process issued out of its court, and the order restraining Papan from issuing the execution against the Arkansas Light & Power Company was properly granted.
The judgment will therefore be affirmed.