Court Opinion

ID: 9567345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:52:42.592931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:33.434306
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent for a very simple reason: That the main opinion seems to imply that once there is a writ of garnishment issued, it has the effect of an automatic, conclusive and irrevocable assignment to the writer, irrespective of whether his claim is valid, as .against valid, equitable, — or legal claims, if you please.
The writ is to isolate the funds, not necessarily to grant substantive rights.
Garnishment proceedings simply tie up money allegedly due to someone until the rights of defendant and third parties are determined. It is not a quiet title action that estops those having recorded or unrecorded interests in the fund, to which such interests must succumb.
The main opinion’s citation of the N. I. L. is not impressive, since the law merchant has absolutely nothing to do with rights of people who claim an interest in garnishment proceedings, which, in turn, have nothing to do with the N. I. L. A simple example illustrating the fallacy of the main opinion’s reasoning and conclusion would be a perfectly valid assignment of the fund prior to the garnishment, which the garnishee has doubts as to whether he should honor. There is no reason why the court could not, in a proper case, conclude that such assignment was good,—and such reasoning extends both to legal and equitable claims. Also, there is no reason why such a claim or interest cannot be asserted simply because a check evidencing it has not been deposited in a bank, honored, or paid.
This matter was determined on summary judgment. Evidence adduced might show an assignment having priority, or it may show no assignment at all,. — but the facts should be established in a proper proceeding.