Morgan County IL Archives Court.....Hodson, V McConnel 1850
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarch.org/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarch.org/il/ilfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 May 23, 2008, 12:15 pm

Source: Records Of Cases Illinois
Written: 1850

William Hodson et al., appellants, v. Murray McConnel, appellee.

Appeal from Morgan.

Where an appeal is allowed to several defendants, and there is a joinder in 
the errors assigned by all, it is too late for the appellee to urge the 
objection, that only a part of the defendants have appealed.

If a judgment is obtained in the name of one party, but for the use of 
another, the judgment debtor cannot be garnisheed, nor can the interest of the 
equitable owner of the judgment be defeated by such proceeding.

A defendant being notified that a judgment against him belongs to a person 
other than the plaintiff on the record, he is as much bound by the notice, as 
if the record stated the judgment to be for the use of such person. (a)

In June, 1844, McConnel obtained judgment in the Morgan Circuit Court against 
Hodson, upon which execution was issued and returned no property found. In 
March, 1849, McConnel filed the requisite affidavit, and obtained an order for 
summons against R. & J. McDonald, as garnishees. In March, 1849, a judgment 
was entered in the same court in the name of Hodson against the McDonalds. The 
proceeding of McConnel was for the purpose of obtaining a judgment against the 
McDonalds, as garnishees, for the amount of the judgment against them in favor 
of Hodson. In November, 1849 the McDonalds and Hodson filed their answers in 
the premises, which are in substance, that several years before that time, the 
McDonalds became indebted to Hodson, and gave him a note, upon which the 
judgment in his favor was rendered. That before suit was brought against them 
on the note, it was sold, in payment of a liability of said Hodson, and was 
delivered to an attorney and held by him for the use of the persons in whose 
favor the liability existed, of which the McDonalds had notice, and that they 
paid said judgment to said attorney, and that they supposed that satisfaction 
of the judgment had been regularly entered. That said judgment was satisfied 
by a new note given to a third party. That the McDonalds had been informed 
when they gave the second note, that McConnel had obtained an order for 
garnishee process against them, but did not know the process had been issued, 
until it was served.

Upon this answer, McConnel moved for a judgment against the garnishees, and at 
the March term, 1850, Woodson, Judge, presiding, a judgment was rendered in 
favor of McConnel against the McDonalds, for the amount of the judgment 
against them in favor of Hodson, and judgment given against Hodson
for the costs arising out of the garnishee proceeding. The present appellants 
excepted, and bring the cause to this court. The McDonalds did not join with 
Hodson in the appeal bond. The appellants assign for error, the rendition of 
the judgment against the McDonalds upon their answers, no issue having been 
made upon the facts stated in them.

William Thomas, for appellants:

That by the twelfth section of the attachment law (R. S., p. 307), it was the 
right of the appellees to appear and answer on oath, etc., and upon filing the 
answer by the garnishees, they should have been discharged from further 
proceedings; unless the plaintiff alleged that the garnishees had not answered 
fully, in which case the court should have directed an issue, to be tried by a 
jury, as provided by the nineteenth section of the attachment law.

The answers in this case show, that Hodson had parted with his rights and 
interest in the judgment against the McDonalds, long before the garnishee 
proceeding was commenced, and there being no allegation of fraud, the judgment 
of the Circuit Court should have been for the defendants: Stockton v. Hall, 
Hardin's Rep., 160; Keegin v. Dawson, l Gilman, 89.

Upon the merits and facts of the case, the only question for the decision of 
the court, is with reference to the facts: was Hodson entitled to the money on 
the judgment against the McDonalds, at the time they were served with notice 
as garnishees? And with reference to the law, will the court compel the 
garnishees to pay money, which, it appears, does not belong to the debtor? Dix 
et al. v. Cobb, 4 Mass., 510; Cushing's Trustee Process, 73, 74.

M. McConnel, pro se:

The McDonalds, who are the real parties in interest, have not joined in the 
appeal, and are not complaining of the judgment. 

Hodson was not summoned in the case and is a mere volunteer, and is not 
authorized to defend in the court below, or to appeal to this court. It is 
apparent that his debt to appellee has not been paid, and that is the only 
question he can make; he cannot assign for error the judgment against the 
garnishees, the judgment against them in his favor being applied to pay his 
debt.

It appears affirmatively, that the judgment against the garnishees was in 
favor of Hodson, and not of any other person, which fact, being a matter of 
record, cannot in a proceeding at law be denied, by going behind the judgment, 
and showing that it was for the use of another.

Trumbull, J. This was a garnishee proceeding, instituted by McConnel, under 
Revised Statutes, chapter 57, section 38, against John and Richard McDonald, 
as debtors of William Hodson.

The Circuit Court gave judgment against the McDonalds for the sum due from 
them to Hodson, and against Hodson for costs.

It was objected, upon the argument, that Hodson alone had appealed, and that 
he would not be permitted to assign errors in the judgment against the 
McDonalds.

In point of fact, an appeal was allowed to all the defendants in the court 
below, and they have all united in the assignment of errors, to which there is 
a joinder in error. After this, it is too late for the appellee to insist that 
only a part of the defendants below had appealed, and it is wholly immaterial, 
whether Hodson has a right to complain of the judgment against the McDonalds. 
They certainly have that right, and have availed themselves of it. 

The record shows that the note upon which the judgment in favor of Hodson 
against the McDonalds was obtained, did not belong to him, but to the heirs of 
one Swain, for some of whom he was guardian, and to all of whom he was 
indebted, and that it was delivered to the attorney who brought suit upon it, 
to collect for their benefit. Hodson had, therefore, no real interest in the 
judgment, although it was in his favor, as it had to be, the note never having 
been assigned. The fact that the record did not state that the judgment was 
for the use of the heirs of Swain, does not alter the case. The object of 
making such a statement upon the record, is to notify the defendant and third 
persons who the real party interest is, so that his rights may not be 
prejudiced by any transaction with the nominal plaintiff. If a defendant has 
notice that a judgment against him belongs to a person other than the 
plaintiff upon the record, he is as much bound by such notice, as if the 
record stated the judgment to be for the use of such other person.

In this case, the record shows that the McDonalds were informed of the 
transfer of the note, and that Hodson had no interest in it, before suit upon 
it was commenced.

The doctrine is well settled that courts of law will notice and protect the 
interests of the equitable owners of choses in action, and particularly so in 
the matter of a garnishee proceeding, which is of an equitable character.

According to the answers of the garnishees and the admissions of the parties, 
contained in the record, it is manifest that Hodson was not entitled to the 
benefit of the judgment in his favor, consequently his creditor, McConnel, 
could have no claim upon it.

Judgment reversed.

------------------
(a) Triplett v. Scott, ante 137, and note. Equitable claims are not liable to 
garnishment: Webster v. Steele, 75 Ill., 544, and cases cited.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois from 
November Term, 1850, to June Term, 1851, both inclusive by E. Peck, Counsellor 
at Law. Volume XII. Reprinted from the Original Edition, with Annotations by 
William Gordon McMillan of the Chicago Bar. Callaghan & Company, Chicago, Ill. 
1881.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/morgan/court/hodson109gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ilfiles/

File size: 8.8 Kb