554 MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. WASSON, 1.192
BANK COMMISSIONER. MAGN'OLIA PETROLEUM COMPANY V. WASSON; • BANK COMMISSIONER. • • 4-4261 • Opinion delivered April 6, 1936. 1. GARNISHMENT.—Answer of garnishee in garnishment p • roceedings admitting indebtedness to the judgment debtor in the amount of $75 is, in the absence of denial, conclusive, and a judgment against him for a greater sum is void. Crawford & Moses' Dig., § 1906. 2. APPEAL AND ERROR.—The Supreme Court cannot presume facts that could appear of record only according to fixed statutory methods, when'those methods were not pursued. 3. GARNthHMENT. — Until there was a traverse of garnishee's answer, it was not required nor expected to take notice of any act except the rendition of the judgment or order to pay over the $75 disclosed by its answer. 4. GARNISHMENT.—Recoveky in garnishment proceedings can be had only up to date of • filing answer. Appeal from Saline Chancery Court ; S. W..Garrott, Chancellor ; reversed., Cockrill, Armistead .& ReCtor, for appellant. McDaniel, Iliceray , ce Crow; for 'appellee. BAKER, J. Walter E. Taylor, as Bank Commissioner, procured a, judgment against A. V. Martin et al., for $39,550 and costs. On July 11, 1933, the Bank Commissioner filed a petiti6n in the chancery court alleging the above indebtedness to 'be unsatis , fied, that Magnolia Petroleum ComPany and others, nailing them, were indebted for rents on buildings occupied by them, the exact amount of such rents not being known, and then propounded the following interrogatories : "First: Were. you on or after the date of the service of the writ of garnishment herein indebted to the defendant, A. V. Martin? If so, how were you. indebted, and for what amount? "Second: Had you in your hands and possession on or after the date of the service of the writ of garnishinent herein any goods, chattels, Moneys, credits or effects belonging to said defendant, A. V. Martin? If so, what was the nature and value thereof ?" Writ of garnishment against Magnolia Petroleum Company was issued on July 12, 1933, and served on that
ARK.] MAGNOLIA. PETROLEUM CO. v. WASSON, 555
BANK COMMISSIONER. day. Thereafter, on July 22, 1933, the Magnolia Petroleum Company filed its answer, duly verified by its assistant manager. In this answer it stated it had in its possession the sum of $75 to the credit of defendant, A. V. Martin.; , that it ,had no other moneys, rights, credits, or choses in action belonging to the defendant other than the $75, which it held subject to the, orders of the court. Thereafter, on October 3, 1935, the court rendered a judgment against the Magnolia Petroleum Company in the, sum , of $1,425. In , that judgment it was found that 'the Magnolia petroleu ni Company had continued to rent 'property from V. Martin of the rental yalue of $50 per month. It is from that judgment the Magnolia Petroleum Company, has appealed. It is . admitted by the appellee that no exceptions were made* to • the answer. filed by the Magnolia, Petroleum Company ; that there was no traverse of its answer; but it is 'argued that it may be determined from the record, which is silent except the. above statement in the judgment; that the court heard evidence justifying the rendition of this judgment. It is also contended by the appel-lee that on August 3, 1933, the court made an order reciting the fact. of .separate answers of H. H. Thompson, garnishee, J. Byrd Wright, garnishee, and Fred New-comb, garnishee, and that upon this recital it was _ordered that all garnishees upon whom writs of garnishment had been seryed, were directed to pay rents due or to become due, to :the.clerk of the court, and that by this . order all rents, were impounded. • ' :-The-garnishinent proceedings in this case -are statutory and must be so regarded. When the answer was filed it furnished the basis for the rendition of a judgment for $75. The court may have heard evidence tending to show such an amount of indebtedness as was acknowledged, but there was no issue . upon which evidence could be adduced.' • The answer was conclusive until an issue *as made by Some traverse thereof. Beasley v. Haney, 96 Ark. 568, 132 S. W. 646. Testimony without such answer, or traverse to garnishee's response to the interrogatories filed was improper, as will appear from
556 MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. v. WASSON, [192 BANK COMMISSIONER. a discussion in the- case of Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. W. 0. Perkins & Son, 185 Ark. 830, 49 S. W. (2d) 606. It is unnecessary to quote frora the two cases above cited. It must be sufficient to Say that they Very clearly and completely lay dawn the roles of proCedure by which the courts are bound. ' But it is argued that the garnishee was actuallY indebted in an amount of rents that accrued from and after the date of the filing of the answer by the garnishee. This argument is gratuitous. There is no such record here. We cannot, and do not, prestime facts that could appear of record only according to fixed statutory methods, when those methods were not pursued. We have already s . hown that the case was not susceptible 'of oral testimony without some controversy or issue joined as to a matter pending before the court. Therefore, there-is no proof of any accruing rents held by the garnishee or that should have been paid by it to the clerk of the coUrt. We are-not saying tha.t the court of equity could not have properly impounded a fnnd and directed a -payment thereof into-the registry of the court. There iS to record here, however, showing that the • Magnolia Petroleum Company was . given any notice of such action of the court. It will be , observed that it was not . among those mentioned in the order upon which the appellee relies. There is no proof that it had any kind of notice to the effect t.he order was intended to apply to the Magnolia Petroleum Company as it did to others who were mentioned. However, if it did have actual notice of this order, we do not think it was at liberty to disregard . the effect of the order without other or further directions or instructions from the court in so far as the same applied to appellant here. We are unwilling to say and •do not say that after the g arnishee had filed its answer that it must follow the case and take notice, when in fact none was given, of all actions of' the' coort. Under the authorities above cited, until there • was a -traverse of -its 'answer, it was not required or expected to
ARK.] MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. v. WASSON, 557 . BANK COMMISSIONER. *, take notice of any act except. the rendition .of the judgment or order to pay -over the $75. No other fund had been drawn into the court ecept that sum. See § 4906, Crawford & Moses' Digest. In the matter of an equitable garnishment, which is not controlled by, the , statute, we have ; recently held that a. recovery could be had only. to the date of ffling answer. It -is not reasonable that a -statutory- proceeding should furnish any broader remedy than the more flexible equit-nble . remedy: Ma6ry Mdn'a:e2); 190 Ark. 154; 160, 77 S. W. (2d) . 975. . .• 'In- that case the garnishee was making an effort to cOVer . 6r 'cOneeal the amonnt of indebtedness, and, as shown by the complaint 'and :proceedings, . the. plaintiff was pursuing the garnishee to uncover certain assets protected by the •fraudulent • conduct of the garnishee controlled by the defendant and his • subordinates• who filed all the answers. It iS n6t the view of tbis court that a reversal . of this case will necessarily work a discharge of the garnishee after Paying • the $75: -We 'are 'only holding that the procedure followed 'was erroneous, that this case shoUld 'be reversed and remanded,-,-with directions to enter judgment for . $75, and no . more, unless the answer . of garnishee . be trayersed, and it be shown: that the,garnishee had .knowledge of the : court 's . Order impounding fUnds .dne from garnishees; and that it acted contrary , .fo. such 60er ' aftei. ' such .knOWIedge, which faCts may be shown by proPef pleadings and proof, if it be •available, in Which" event the --dou -rt - 'may 'then . p ro de d to cleterniipe the .aMount of money proPeAY impounded, if any, and render . jndgthent accordingly. It • .so ordered,.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.