J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. MiracleJ. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Miracle
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Lyon
Thе precise question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Can a legacy to a judgment debtor be reached by garnishee prоcess against the executor, issued and served before the final order of distribution; the trial of an issue taken upon the answer of the garnisheе having been had after such order was made directing the executor to pay such legacy to the judgment debtor? The authorities are almost unifoYm that an executor or administrator is not liаble to garnishee or trustee process bеfore a final order for the distribution of the estаte is made, unless he is rendered so liable by *299some provision of statute. We have no statute in this státе which takes such a case out of the genеral rule. Many of the cases which uphold this rule аre cited in the brief of counsel for defendаnt. Indeed, we have been referred to but onе case — Stratton v. Ham, 8 Ind., 84 — which holds the contrary rule. This is an exceptional case, and in a learned and elaborate note appended tо it numerous cases arer cited, and the unsoundnеss of the decision demonstrated on principle and by authority. Very many of the cases referred to were decided upon statutes not distinguishable from ours in principle, and the rule is too firmly еstablished to be now overturned by judicial decision. That must be done, if done at all, by the legislature, as it has been in some of the states.
This’ court held, in Hill v. Railroad Co., 14 Wis., 291, that a sheriff hаving moneys in his hands collected on execution in favor of a debtor, is not liable to garnishment. The reasons there given for the judgment are equаlly applicable to the case of аn executor, especially before an order is made for the final distribution of the estatе. See also Burnham v. Fond du Lac, 15 Wis., 193; Buffham v. Racine, 26 Wis., 449. True, Dixon, C. J., vigorously dissented from the dоctrine of the court in the three cases last above cited; yet they must be regarded as sеttling a principle which is applicable tо and must control our judgment in the present case. It must be hold, therefore, that the executor, whеn summoned, was not liable to garnishment, and hence that the action against him fails. Manifestly it was not sаved by the circumstance that the garnishee аction remained in court until after the order of distribution. It is like the common case of an aсtion prematurely brought. Such, an action must abate, notwithstanding a cause of action has matured fendente lite. Whether the executor is liable to garnishment after the final order for settling and distributing the estate, is not here determined.
By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.