97 N.W. 557 | N.D. | 1903
Lead Opinion
This is an appeal from an order vacating an attachment. The action in which the writ issued was brought to recover damages for a deceit alleged to have been committed by the defendants in connection with the sale by them to plaintiff of 960 acres of farm lands situated in Ransom county. The deceit which is. alleged as a cause of action consists of false representations by defendants to plaintiff that they were the owners of the land. The complaint alleges, in substance, that on the 30th day of September, 1902, the defendants, with intent to deceive and defraud the plaintiff, falsely and fraudulently stated and represented to the plaintiff' that they were the owners of the land in question, and were legally entitled to make a contract to sell and convey the same; that the: plaintiff, relying upon said representations, and believing them to’ be true, entered into a contract to purchase said lands, and paid to the defendants upon the purchase price thereof, in cash and merchandise, $12,857.33; that defendants'were not the owners of said, land, and were not legally entitled to enter into a contract to sell and convey the same; that the defendants knew said statements, were false and untrue, and they made the same for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to pay to them the said sum of $12,857.33;: that the land in question was owned by other persons — 320 acres by George H. Collins, 320 acres by Thomas Jones, 160 acres by N. A. Lundvall, and 160 acres by Annie Frey; “that by reason of the premises the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of' $12,857.33,” for which sum he demanded judgment, together with' his costs and disbursements. The affidavit upon which the writ was issued stated two statutory grounds for its issuance, and in the following language: “(1) That the debt upon which the action is commenced was incurred for property obtained under false pretenses; (2) that the said defendants are about to sell, assign, transfer, secrete, or otherwise dispose of their property with intent to cheat or defraud their creditors.” The affidavit further stated! “that said action is commenced for the recovery of money only, and', that a duly verified complaint therein has been filed with the clerk of the district court, which said complaint sets forth a proper cause of action for attachment in favor of said plaintiff and against said defendants.” An order to show cause why the writ should not be vacated and set aside was issued by the trial court, and, after a hearing at which a large number of affidavits in support of and in.
We are of opinion that the attachment was properly vacated, and the order appealed from must therefore be affirmed.
Section 5356, Rev. Codes 1899, provides that “the warrant shall issue upon a verified complaint, setting forth a proper cause of action for attachment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and an affidavit,, setting forth in the language of the statute one or more of the grounds of attachment enumerated in section 5352,” which grounds are eight in number. Formerly — and this is still true in a number of states — the remedy by attachment was not available except in actions upon contract. Our statute (section 5352, Rev. Codes 1899) extends the remedy to actions “for the wrongful conversion of personal property, or for damages, whether arising out of contract or otherwise.” Section 5376, Rev. Codes 1899, provides that if, upon a motion to discharge, it shall appear “to the satisfaction of the court or judge that the attachment was irregularly issued, or that the affidavit upon which it was issued is untrue, the attachment must be discharged.” It is true, plaintiff’s complaint sets forth a cause of action in which an attachment may be had. His cause of action is for damages for a deceit, but, as we have seen, section 5352, Rev. .Codes 1899, authorizes the issuance of the writ in actions “for damages, whether arising out of contract or otherwise.” The vital question presented to the trial court on the motion to vacate the writ, and to this court on this appeal, is whether the grounds set forth in the affidavit as a basis for the issuance of the writ were true. It appears from an examination of the affidavits that one of the grounds — that is, the claim that defendants were disposing of their property to defraud their creditors — was not seriously urged in the trial court, and it is not urged or relied upon in this court. This ground is clearly not sustained by the evidence.
Counsel for appellant rely entirely upon the allegation in his affidavit that “the debt upon which the action is commenced was incurred for property obtained under false pretenses,” which is the sixth ground for atachment under section 5352, Rev. Codes 1899, and the affidavits submitted on the motion are chiefly directed to the question of the defendants’ alleged false pretenses of ownership of the land. On the question as to whether they did so represent, the evidence is in square conflict. It is not disputed that the plaintiff contracted to pay the sum of $25,920 for the entire 960
The authorities are divided on the question as to whether it' is proper, on a motion to dissolve air attachment upon the ground that it was improperly issued, to pass upon the grounds of the attachment, where they are the same as the issues in the main action. Newell et al. v. Whitwell (Mont.) 40 Pac. 866; Kuehn v. Paroni, (Nev.) 19 Pac. 273, and Olmsted v. Rivers, 9 Neb. 234, 2 N. W. 366, may be cited as holding that it is not. Bundrem v. Denn, 25 Kan. 430, and Carnahan v. Gustine et al. (Okl.) 37 Pac. 594,.are to the effect that courts should not refuse to determine the truth of the grounds of attachment stated in the affidavit, even when it involves a determination of the facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action. The view that we have taken of this case renders a consideration of both of these contentions unnecessary. For the purposes of this case, we might assume both contentions of appellant’s counsel to be true; that is, that the affidavits clearly establish the false representation; or again, we might assume the correctness of their legal proposition, viz., that, when the ’cause of action and ground
As we have seen, the plaintiff’s cause of action is one in which ,a writ of attachment may issue if proper statutory grounds exist, but it does not follow that all of the eight grounds enumerated in .section 5352, Rev. Codes 1899, were available to him. It is apparent that the first ground stated in said section, towit, the non-residence of defendant, and also a number of others, apply indiscriminately to all actions in which a writ may issue, regardless of the nature of the action, whether it is upon a contract, judgment for the conversion of personal property, or for damages. It is also .apparent that all of the eight grounds do not apply to all classes of actions. For instance, a writ may be had under the eighth ground “in an action to recover -purchase' money for personal property sold to the defendant,” in which case the writ maf be “levied upon such property.” No one would seriously contend that this ground when stated in an affidavit, would sustain an attachment in an
The order vacating the attachment will be affirmed.
Rehearing
ON REHEARING.
(November 30, 1903.)
It was strongly urged by counsel for appellant in their petition for a rehearing, and also upon the reargument, that this court, in holding that the sixth statutory ground for attachment, viz., “when the debt upon "which the action is commenced was incurred for" property obtained under false pretenses,” applies only in actions'upon a contract indebtedness, and is not applicable in an action to' recover damages for torts, “misconstrued the statute, and disregarded the express language of the statute in defining the term ‘debt.’ ” It was argued that “the legislature of this state has-specifically defined the word ‘debt,’ and has adopted the very broadest definition thereof, and has discarded the technical meaning-thereof.” The conclusion for which counsel contend is that “a. ‘debt’ — that which a- debtor owes — is synonymous with ‘obligation/' and ‘obligation’ includes liabilities for torts. In short, then, á debt as the term is used in our statute (except chapter 96 of the CiviL Code), is an obligation arising either from contract or tort.” Counsel are in error in stating that the legislature has specifically defined the meaning of the word “debt,” and also in the contention that the words “debt” and “obligation” are synonymous. The most that can be said is that the terms “creditor” and “debtor” have been defined. The statute nowhere defines the term “debt.” The argument that the word “debt,” as used in the statute under consideration, should have any other than its ordinary meaning, and should be treated as synonymous with “obligation,” has no other basis-than the fact that the words “debtor” and “creditor” have been defined by the legislature; and because these words have been extended beyond their ordinary and natural meaning, we are asked
“Sec. 5047. Debtor Defined. A debtor within the meaning of' this chapter is one who by reason of an existing obligation is or-may become 'liable to pay money to another, whether such liability is certain or contingent.
“Sec. 5048. Creditor Defined. A creditor within the meaning-of this chapter is one in whose favor an obligation exists by reason?, of which he is or may become entitled to the payment of money.”
Chapter 96, Civil Code, which includes the sections just quoted, relates to fraudulent instruments and transfers. It is not open to-question that under' the above sections the terms “debtor” and. “creditor” have their usual signification; that is, one from whom-, or to whom a debt is due, using the word “debt” according to its-common meaning. The particular provision upon which counsel rely to sustain their contention that “debt” and “obligation” are. synonymous is contained in section 5113, Rev. Codes 1899, which is a part of chapter 99 of the Civil Code, devoted to definitions. and general provisions. This section reads as follows: “Except-as defined and used in chapter 96 of this Code, every one who owes, to another the performance of an obligation is called a debtor and. the one to whom he owes it is called a creditor.” Section 3762, Rev-Codes 1899, defines an obligation as. follows: “An obligation is a. legal duty by which a person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing.” Section 3763, Rev. Codes 1899, defines the manner in which an obligation may arise. It reads as follows: “An obligation arises, either from: (1) The contract of the parties; or (2) the-operation of law.” Chapter 43 of the Civil Code relates to obligations created by contract, and chapter 44 relates entirely to-obligations imposed by law. Section 3940 of this chapter provides that, “every person is bound without contract to abstain from injuring the property of another or infringing upon any of his rights.” The-remaining sections of this chapter relate to liabilities for breaches, of the duties imposed by the above section; that is, for the various kinds of tort, including deceit. An examination of the several sec
But our conclusion that the sixth ground of attachment does not ¡apply in action to recover damages for torts does not rest wholly -upon the fact that the word “debt,” standing alone, in its usual ¡and ordinary sense, imports an obligation resting upon contract. This is its common meaning. It was said in Minga v. Zollicoffer, 23 N. C. 279, “that neither in common parlance nor in legal proceedings is a mere wrongdoer'designated as a debtor, nor his responsibility for wrong classed under the denomination of debts. Debt?
Up to the year 1897 the remedy by attachment was not generally available in this jurisdiction in tort actions, upon a-ny ground. Prior-to that time a writ could be issued only “in an action on a contract- or judgment for the recovery of money only, or for a wrongful conversion of personal property.” See section 4993,. Comp. Laws Dak. 1887, and section 5352, Rev. Codes 1895. Chapter." 30, p. 33, Laws.
It will thus be seen that the sixth ground of attachment has been in force in this jurisdiction continuously since 1881, and further, that the word “debt,” as used therein, originally meant a debt arising from contract and did not include liabilities for torts. This is necessarily true, for, as we'have seen, until chapter 30, p. 33, Laws 1897, was enacted, an attachment could issue only in actions on contract, or action upon judgments for the recovery of money or for the wrongful conversion of personal property. It 'is obvious that this ground of attachment could not apply to the two kinds of actions last named. It was therefore only applicable in actions “‘on a contract” for the recovery of money only; that is, in an action upon a “debt” proper. This meaning of the word debt has not been changed, and in this connection it is proper to note that all -of the provisions above quoted, defining the terms “debtor,” “creditor,” and “obligation,” upon which counsel for appellant rely, have 'been in force continuously since 1866. Section 5151, Rev. Codes 1899, reads as follows : “Words and phrases are construed according to the context and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a peculiar and -appropriate meaning in law or are defined by statute, are to be -construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning or definition.” The rule of construction announced in this section is, we fhink, directly applicable. Prior to the adoption of chapter 30, -p. 33, of the Laws of 1897, permitting attachments in tort actions, “a debt incurred for property obtained under false pretenses” had .acquired a fixed meaning in this jurisdiction. It meant an obligation to pay intentionally incurred and by false pretenses. Fuller, . J., in Finch v. Armstrong, 9 S. D. 261, 68 N. W. 741, in discussing this particular ground of attachment, said: “Indemnity against pecuniary loss occasioned by the dishonest acts or omissions of 'those to whom credit has been extended appears to be the princi
The cases cited from Minnesota and Iowa, decided under statutes similar to or like our own, do not sustain appellant’s contention that an action to recover damages for a tort will sustain an attachment under the sixth statutory ground. In Cole v. Aune, 40 Minn. 80, 41 N. W. 934, which is chiefly relied upon by appellant’s counsel, an attachment was sustained under* the statutory ground that “the plaintiff’s debt was fraudulently contracted,” in an action to recover money which had been embezzled by the defendant. The facts were that the defendant, Aune, had been in the employ of the plaintiff, Cole, conducting a store, at a fixed salary of $60 per month, and for a compensation in addition thereto of one-half of the net profits, payable upon an .accounting. The business was conducted under the name Cole & Aune. Defendant drew his fixed
The order of the district court, therefore, in dissolving the attachment, was proper, and will be affirmed.