Court Opinion

ID: 9734942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:53:15.932606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:52.704595
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Crumpacker, J.,
concurs.—I concur in the results reached by the court but I cannot agree that this proceeding is in the nature of an action for money had and received. “In order to support a count in assumpsit for money had and received, it must in general appear that the defendant has actually received and has in his hands money, or something which has been received as money, belonging to the plaintiff, which it is his duty immediately to pay over.” 4 Am. Jur., Assumpsit, §22. *464Such is not the theory of this proceeding. The Bahars, plaintiffs below and appellants here, do not claim that the money in the hands of the First National Bank, Trustee, is their money and that said trustee is under a duty to pay it over to them. On the contrary they say said money belongs to Tadros and they ask the court to sequester it through a receiver or otherwise so that it will be available to apply on their judgment against Tadros in the event the real estate involved does not bring enough at foreclosure sale to discharge said judgment.
Although remedy by sequestration, in cases of this type, has never been provided by our legislature, there can be no doubt that it exists at common law and has been exercised by the courts of this country through a judicial writ, resembling an execution at law, to secure the performance of a decree. Clements v. Tillman (1888), 79 Ga. 451, 5 S. E. 194; Manning v. Securities Co. (1909), 242 Ill. 584, 90 N. E. 238; White v. White (1919), 233 Mass. 39, 123 N. E. 389. I do not believe however that when the property sought to be sequestered is in the possession of a third person under a claim of title or superior right, the application for the writ can be disposed of without notice to such third person, the joinder of issues and a trial thereof. Under such circumstances the proceedings lose their summary character and are governed by the rules of practice pertaining to suits in equity.
In the present case it was necessary for the court to hear evidence and determine (1) the probability of a deficiency after the sale of the property involved; (2) the ownership of the money in the hands of the trustee ; and (3) the validity of the trust agreement as against the claim of the appellants. This the court did and resolved the issues against the appellants. If it com*465mitted error in doing so the appellants’ remedy was a motion for a new trial with no right of appeal until the trial court had been afforded an opportunity to correct its errors if it concluded it had committed any. These observations, of course, refer only to errors occurring during trial and which must, in ordinary practice, be raised by a motion for a new trial. Such are the alleged errors the appellants now seek to have tis review and I agree with the court that they are not properly presented.
Note.—Reported in 126 N. E. 2d 791.