Union Collection Co. v. Snell
Before: Kerrigan
Synopsis
Proceedings Supplementary to Execution—Eights of Third Parties.—Upon a proceeding supplementary to execution the judgment creditor is not entitled to an order that a third person, who has received money from the judgment creditor, which is claimed in good faith to be the property of such third person, shall pay the Sami’to the sheriff to be applied by him toward the satisfaction of the judgment. The title of such third person cannot be litigated in such proceeding.
Id.—Modes of Litigating Title of Third Person—Power of Court— Creditor's Bill.—The only power of the court in the supplementary proceeding is to authorize the judgment creditor to institute an action against such third person to recover the money and to forbid a transfer of it until such action shall be prosecuted to judgment. But the judgment creditor may also litigate the question by a creditor's bill against such third person as claiming under the judgment debtor. Such creditor's bill is not superseded by proceedings supplementary to execution.
KERRIGAN, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on the report of a referee in proceedings supplementary to execution.
Many elements are absent from the record. A mere statement of the case will have to he made largely from inferences.
[131]
The appellant some time prior to these proceedings obtained a judgment against Mary E. Snell, Sarah N. Snell and Richard B. Snell; execution was issued thereon, and the same was duly returned by the sheriff unsatisfied. Thereafter proceedings supplementary to execution were instituted by the judgment creditor, in which a referee was appointed. The referee examined witnesses, considered the questions presented and reported that the order prayed for by the judgment creditor should be denied, upon which report a judgment was entered, pursuant to the report of the referee, that the judgment creditor take nothing against Mrs. Edna Snell Poulson.
The report of the referee shows that during the year 1900 Mrs. Poulson paid certain debts owing by her brother and sisters, Richard B. Snell, Sarah N. Snell and Mary E. Snell, amounting to $3,500. These payments were made without authority, and without the knowledge or request of the brother and sisters of Mrs. Poulson, nor was there any subsequent promise on their part to repay Mrs. Poulson. On March 12, 1904, Mary E. Snell received from a certain estate $1,900
as
a legacy, $1,600 of which, March 21, 1904, she gave to Mrs. Poulson to apply on account of payments made by Mrs. Poulson as hereinabove stated. It is contended by appellant that Mrs. Poulson was a mere volunteer
(Curtis
v.
Park,
55 Cal. 105;
Moulton
v.
Loux,
52 Cal. 81;
Gray
v.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)