Court Opinion

ID: 9516874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:54:55.751489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:45.444915
License: Public Domain

*123Knutson, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result.
I am in full agreement with what has been said in the first subdivision of the. majority opinion. I also agree with that part of the second subdivision holding that there is no right of setoff; but I cannot agree that the reason there is no setoff is due to the fact that the bank’s claim is based on a contingent or unmatured claim against defendant.
If defendant desired to withdraw the money impounded by the Gartner garnishment, M. S. A. 571.61 provides a method whereby he could do so by giving the garnishee a bond. If such bond had been given, surely the bank, when new deposits of defendant were garnished by plaintiff, could not disregard the bond and claim a setoff against the funds garnished by plaintiff on account of the Gartner judgment which it had been compelled to pay. Its only recourse when it was obliged to pay the Gartner judgment would be to obtain reimbursement from the bond. When it paid out the money without a bond, it did so at its own risk. It stood in no better position than if it had demanded a bond, as it could do under the statute.
When the Gartner garnishment was served, the garnishee became a stakeholder of the money impounded. It was supposed to stand indifferent as to who should have the money or property, its obligation being to pay it out as directed by the court. 5 Am. Jur., Attachment and Garnishment, § 659; 38 C. J. S., Garnishment, § 185; Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Kisor, 206 Minn. 134, 287 N. W. 869. Theoretically, the bank, as stakeholder, still held the funds impounded by the Gartner garnishment to the extent required to pay the Gartner judgment when plaintiff served its garnishment summons and impounded new funds of defendant. Had the bank retained this money, as it was legally obligated to do, or obtained, a bond, as the statute permits it to do, it would have no occasion to claim a setoff against the funds impounded by plaintiff. It cannot; be permitted to acquire a setoff to the prejudice of plaintiff’s rights by its illegal act in paying the money out to the depositor after such money was impounded by service of the Gartner garnishment.