TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Central Lumber Co. v. Dougherty

CENTRAL LUMBER COMPANY v. DOUGHERTY (MADSEN, Garnishee-Appellants.)

Cent. Lumber Co. v. Dougherty, 181 N.W. 196 (S.D. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
South Dakota Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 8, 1921
Docket
No. File No. 4683
Judges
Polley
Citations
181 N.W. 19643 S.D. 5801921 S.D. LEXIS 20
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Garnishment — Garnishment After Judgment, No Execution Issued, Void Garnishee Summons — Statute Construed. Under Section 2454, Code 1919, providing in effect that “Either at the time of the issuing of a summons, or at any time thereafter before final judgment, in any action to recover damages founded upon contract, express or implied, or upon judgment or decree, or at any time after the issuing in any case of an execution against property, and before the time when it is returnable,” plaintiff may have garnishment summons issued, etc., held, that wherever garnishee summons is sought to he issued after judgment in the main suit, an execution must have issued prior to and as a condition .precedent to issuance of garnishee summons; and where and in such instance such summons issued without previous issuance of execution, garnishee summons is void, and garnishee defendants’ motion to dismiss same should have been granted.
Summary
Appeal from Circuit Court, Corson County. Hon. Raymond L. Diixman, Judge. Action by the Central Lumber Company, a 'corporation, against Thomas P. Dougherty, defendant; Ray 4 Madsen et al being- garnishee defendants. After judgment entered against the main defendant, garnishee summons against the garnishee defendants was issued. Prom an order denying a motion to vacate and set aside the garnishment proceedings, garnishee defendants appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Polley

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

POLLEY, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate and set aside garnishlment proceedings against the appellants as garnishee defendants in this action. Plaintiffs recovered a money • judgment against the principal defendant. Thereafter plaintiff caused garnishee summons to 'be issued and *581 served upon the. appellants. Thereupon appellants procured an order to -show cause why the said garnishment proceedings-,should not be dismissed on the ground that judgment -had been entered, but that no execution was then in force.

The -only question involved .on the appeal is whether, in such case, an execution must be issued and be in force as a 'prerequisite 'to the issuance of a garnishee sumimons. The answer to the question depends 'upon the meaning of section 2454, Rev. Code. This section reads as- follows:

“Either at the time of the issuing of a summons, -or at any time thereafter before final judgment, in any action to recover damages founded (Upon contract, express or' implied, or upon judgment or decree, or at any time after the issuing in any -case of an execution against property and before the time when it is returnable. * * * ”

This means that in an action for the recovery of damages founded either upon a contract express or implied, or upon a judgment or decree, a garnishee sumimons -may be issued at the time of issuing the summions -in the action or at any time thereafter before the entry of final judgment; or, if the garnishee summons is not issued before the entry of final judgment, then it cannot be issued until an execution has -been issued and prior to the time when such execution is returnable. In other words, if the garnishee summons is not- issued prior to the entry of judgment it cannot be issued thereafter unless an execution has been issued and is in force. In this case no execution was in force at the time of the issuance of the garnishee summions; therefore there was no authority for issuing such summons, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the same should have been granted.

The order appealed from is reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1940: 11970: 11983: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Holt v. Holt176 N.W.2d 51 (S.D. 1970)
  2. First Potter County Bank v. Hogg (In re Hogg)35 B.R. 292 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1983)
  3. Alswager v. Dwelle292 N.W. 223 (N.D. 1940)

Most recent

  1. First Potter County Bank v. Hogg (In re Hogg)35 B.R. 292 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1983)
  2. Holt v. Holt176 N.W.2d 51 (S.D. 1970)
  3. Alswager v. Dwelle292 N.W. 223 (N.D. 1940)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list