From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wymond v. Gaude Service, Inc.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A
Jan 15, 1934
152 So. 60 (Miss. 1934)

Opinion

No. 30909.

January 15, 1934.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

Circuit court is authorized on appeal from justice of the peace to allow amendments to answers of garnishees, changing admission of indebtedness to attachment or judgment debtor to denial of such indebtedness (Code 1930, sections 67, 567).

APPEAL from Circuit Court of Adams County.

Whittington Brown, of Natchez, for appellants.

We concede that when the defendant garnishee wholly fails to answer in the justice court and completely makes default therein that there is no authority of law for him to file an answer on appeal.

DeJean Mitchell Co. v. Mead, 92 Miss. 596, 46 So. 58; Gulf S.I.R. Co. v. Ramsey, 54 So. 440; Sou. Lbr. Mfg. Co. v. Mallett, 101 Miss. 135, 57 So. 548.

But there is no analogy, however, between those cases and this case.

It is our contention that when the defendant garnishee has made a timely answer in the justice of the peace court he should be allowed to amend upon appeal when the imperfections and omissions in his answer are the result of circumstances which estop the plaintiff from objecting to them.

Sou. Lbr. Mfg. Co. v. Mallett, 101 Miss. 135, 57 So. 548.

Brandon Brandon, of Natchez, for appellee.

The garnishee was required to file his answer by noon on the return day of the writ unless for cause shown the justice of the peace should have granted further time within which to answer.

Section 1848, Code of 1930.

If he had failed to file answer, he could not upon appeal have filed same for the first time in the circuit court.

Gulf, etc., Co. v. Ramsey, 98 Miss. 863, 54 So. 450; So. Lbr. Co. v. Mallett, 101 Miss. 135, 57 So. 548; Jamison v. H.K. Mulford Co., 108 Miss. 639, 60 So. 148.

Though the garnishee might upon appeal have been permitted upon application to the court to amend his answer, to show a greater or lesser amount, or no amount, actually owing to the principal judgment debtor, he could not for the first time interplead an assignment upon appeal, particularly where the assignment, if any existed, was known to him at the time he filed his original answer. He is estopped to set up any such fact for the first time upon an appeal to the circuit court.


This is an appeal from a judgment against garnishees. The appellee obtained a judgment in a justice of the peace court and a writ of garnishment was issued thereon against the appellants. The garnishees appeared on the return day of the writ and answered as follows:

"That they are not indebted to R.O. Morrison at the present time, but that they were so indebted to said R.O. Morrison on June 27, 1932, the date of service of said writ on said garnishees in the sum of not less than one hundred ninety-six dollars and forty-two cents, but that said monies were paid by them to defendant's wife, Mrs. R.O. Morrison after said date:

"That they have no effects of said defendant, nor do they know of any other person who owes or has any effects of said defendant in their hands at this time."

A judgment was thereupon entered against them in favor of the appellee for one hundred seventy-three dollars and forty-three cents, the amount of the judgment on which the writ was issued.

The garnishees appealed to the circuit court and there filed an amended answer setting forth that their indebtedness to the judgment debtor had been assigned to Mrs. W.S. Wymond and notice thereof had been given to them before the service of the writ of garnishment; that they had not paid the indebtedness; that Mrs. Wymond claimed it, and suggested that she be summoned to contest the right thereto with the judgment creditor. This amended answer was filed without leave of court, but instead of moving to strike it from the record, the appellee filed an objection styled a plea, asking for a judgment on the answer filed in the court of the justice of the peace. This plea was answered by the garnishees, and reasons unnecessary to be here set forth were given in justification of the filing of the amended answer.

Mrs. Wymond voluntarily appeared and propounded a claim to the fund. A jury was waived and the case was tried by the court without a jury, solely on the issue made by the appellee's objection to the filing of the amended answer.

After hearing the evidence, the court rendered a judgment against the garnishees in accordance with that rendered in the justice of the peace court. The effect of this judgment is simply to refuse to permit the appellant to file the amended answer. The course of the trial indicates that the judgment was not rendered on the theory that leave to file the amended answer must first be obtained, and had that question been raised, the appellant could have met it with a request for leave to file the answer.

Under section 67, Code 1930, appeals from the court of a justice of the peace to a circuit court are tried de novo; and under section 567, Code 1930, the circuit court is authorized to allow proper amendments to pleadings in such cases (McCullar v. Mink, 121 Miss. 831, 83 So. 907), among which are amendments to answers of garnishees, changing an admission of indebtedness to an attachment or judgment debtor to a denial of such indebtedness (Green v. Western Union Tel. Co., 146 Miss. 703, 111 So. 750).

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Wymond v. Gaude Service, Inc.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A
Jan 15, 1934
152 So. 60 (Miss. 1934)
Case details for

Wymond v. Gaude Service, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:WYMOND et al. v. GAUDE SERVICE, INC

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A

Date published: Jan 15, 1934

Citations

152 So. 60 (Miss. 1934)
152 So. 60

Citing Cases

Delta Motors, Inc. v. Childs

Cannady v. Espey, 93 So.2d 453 (Miss. 1957); Wymond v. Gaude Service, Inc., 168 Miss. 678, 152 So. 60…