Summary
affirming judgment against garnishee-partnership where the manager of the partnership answered interrogatories on behalf of himself and the partnership
Summary of this case from Sanact, Inc. v. US Pipelining, LLCOpinion
March 17, 1931.
April 13, 1931.
Foreign attachment — Interests in partnership — Judgment against garnishee — Nonresident — Moneys received by garnishee after attachment served — Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 580.
1. The object of seizing the property of a nonresident defendant by a writ of foreign attachment is to compel an appearance, and under the Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 580, the real and personal property of the defendant are subject thereto. [403]
2. The interest of a partner in firm assets is personalty, and as such liable to foreign attachment. [403]
3. The writ holds the partner's undivided interest, whatever it may prove to be, and is properly served upon the managing partner in charge of the business, who with the partnership is properly summoned as garnishee. [403]
4. That an execution attachment will not lie against a partner's interest in firm property is not controlling in foreign attachment. The purpose of the attachment execution is to collect a judgment; the purpose of the foreign attachment is to compel an appearance, and both remedies are under separate provisions. [403]
5. Where a partner's interest has been attached, and the garnishee partnership, after the attachment has been served, pays monies accruing from the business to the partner whose interest has been attached, they will be liable for such monies to the attaching creditor. [404]
6. If there had been no property of the defendant in the hands of the garnishee when the writ was served, the writ would have fallen, and defendant's property thereafter received by the garnishee would not be bound thereby. [404]
Argued March 17, 1931.
Before FRAZER, C. J., WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER and MAXEY, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 13 and 14, March T., 1931, by Central Cafeteria, defendant, in No. 13, and by Harry H. Carr, garnishee, in No. 14, from judgments of C. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1930, No. 459, and Oct. T., 1929, No. 157, against garnishee in foreign attachment, in case of W. W. Rankin v. Conrad S. Culver, Central Cafeteria, Harry H. Carr, manager, and Mary Swartz, garnishee. Affirmed.
Foreign attachment against interest in partnership. Before MARSHALL, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Judgment against garnishee on answers. Defendant, Central Cafeteria, and garnishee appealed.
Error assigned was judgment, quoting record.
John P. Patterson, for appellants. — The court failed to distinguish between a partner's interest in an unsettled partnership and a partner's right in specific partnership property. The former is intangible property, while the latter is tangible. The court affirmed the proposition that the former is not subject to execution attachment, but held that it is subject to foreign attachment. In so holding, the court, we submit, erred. The reason why such interest is not subject to either execution or foreign attachment is because of the nature of the interest: Joseph Horne Co. v. Petty, 192 Pa. 32; Alter v. Brooke, 9 Phila. 260; Falk Co. v. Express Co., 79 Pa. Super. 99.
That no partnership effects were attached by the writ in the case at bar is shown by the return of the sheriff to the writ: P. R. R. v. Pennock, 51 Pa. 244; Glenny v. Boyd, 26 Pa. Super. 380; Morgan v. Watmough, 5 Wharton 125; Jaffray's App., 101 Pa. 583.
W. T. Tredway, for appellee, cited: McCarty v. Emlin, 2 Dallas 277; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. West, 8 W. S. 350; Morgan v. Watmough, 5 Wharton 125.
Conrad S. Culver, the defendant, a nonresident, owned a three-sevenths interest in a partnership doing business in Pittsburgh as Central Cafeteria, of which Harry H. Carr was manager and part owner. On July 3, 1929, the plaintiff, W. W. Rankin, issued a writ of foreign attachment against the defendant which same day the sheriff served by attaching his interest in the partnership. The defendant was not served and never appeared, but at the end of the third term judgment was taken against him and liquidated by the prothonotary at $3,960.19. Meantime, beginning with the month that the attachment was issued, Carr, manager of the partnership and a garnishee, continued to pay Culver from time to time his share of the net earnings of the partnership, so that Carr, in June, 1930, answering the interrogatories for himself and the partnership, admitted that such payments amounted to $4,285.80. Thereupon, a rule for judgment against the garnishees, on the answers to the interrogatories, was made absolute and Carr and the partnership each has appealed.
We find nothing in the record calling for a reversal or for an extended discussion. The object of seizing the property of a nonresident defendant by a writ of foreign attachment is to compel an appearance (Kennedy, Inc., v. Schleidl, 290 Pa. 38; Mindlin et al. v. Saxony S. Co. et al., 261 Pa. 354; Sheetz v. Hobensack, 20 Pa. 412; Falk Co. v. Am. Ry. Express Co., 79 Pa. Super. 99), and under the statute (Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 580, 2 Purdon's Digest (13th edition), 1712), the real and personal property of the defendant are subject thereto. The interest of a partner in firm assets is personalty, and as such liable to foreign attachment: Morgan v. Watmouth, 5 Wh. 125. The writ holds the partner's undivided interest, whatever it may prove to be, and is properly served, as here, upon the manager in charge of the business, who, with the partnership, is properly summoned as garnishee. That an execution attachment will not lie against a partner's interest in firm property (see Horne Co. v. Petty, 192 Pa. 32, 38; Importers and Traders Nat. Bank v. Lyons, 195 Pa. 479, 482), is not controlling here. There the purpose is to collect a judgment and not to compel an appearance and it is under separate statutory provisions. See Act of June 16, 1836, P. L. 767, 2 Purdon's Digest (13th edition), 1532, and other statutes relating thereto.
Of course, a writ of foreign attachment can be maintained only where the nonresident defendant has property which can be seized thereon. Where he has no such property the writ falls: Kennedy, Inc., v. Schleidl, supra; Mindlin v. Saxony S. Co. et al., supra; Falk v. Am. Ry. Express Co., supra; P. R. R. Co. v. Pennock, 51 Pa. 244. A defendant cannot be compelled to appear by attaching that which he has not. Here there was property, to wit, ownership of a share of partnership assets; hence, the attachment was valid. This being so, it bound not only the property of the defendant in the hands of the garnishees when the writ was served, but whatever they might thereafter receive: Kennedy, Inc., v. Schleidl, supra; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. West, 8 W. S. 350. Had there been no property of the defendant in the hands of the garnishees when the writ was served it would have fallen, as above stated, and defendant's property thereafter received by them would not be bound thereby.
The partnership known as the Central Cafeteria was a prosperous business and between the service of the writ and the filing of the garnishee's answers the garnishees had paid defendant as his share of the net profits various sums aggregating $4,285.80, as above stated. This was in defiance of the attachment and rendered the garnishees personally liable to the plaintiff. His claim being less than the sums so paid the defendant, the trial court entered judgment against the garnishees, on their answers, for the amount of the claim. The answers clearly showing a liability greater than plaintiff's claim, the judgment thereon was properly entered. See Allegheny Savings Bank v. Meyer, 59 Pa. 361.
The trial court disposed of the case with entire accuracy and the judgment is affirmed.