Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Ind. App. 401

Main v. Field

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided June 4, 1895

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1895-06-04

<p>Injunction. — Restraining a Resident from Prosecuting Attachment Proceedings in Foreign State. — Violation of Order. — Liability in Damages to Debtor. — Since the courts of this State have the power to restrain a resident of the State from prosecuting an. attachment proceeding in a foreign State, against a resident of this State, in violation of the section (2283, R. S. 1894) of the criminal statute, a person .who, in violation of such a restraining order, prosecutes such proceeding in attachment or garnishment to judgment, and collects the same, is liable in damages to the one from whom the debt is thus collected.</p> <p>Same. — Damages.—Failure to Obey Mandate. — Sufficiency of Answer. — Defense. ■ — • In an action by the debtor for damages by reason of the failure of the plaintiff in the attachment proceeding to obey the mandate, and collecting money belonging to the debtor from the garnishee defendant, an answer is insufficient which does not deny the injunction, but relies upon the fact that the appellee did not appear in the attachment proceeding and plead the injunction in his defense.</p> <p>Same. — Damages.—Notice to Garnishee. — Defense.—The fact that the garnishee in the attachment proceeding was not notified of the injunction, and was not a party thereto, cannot avail the defendant in the action for damages.</p> <p>Same. — Notice of Contents of Decree. — Certified. Copy. — One who was a party to an injunction proceeding, which resulted in an order and decree for injunction, is bound to take notice of the contents of such order and decree, and it is not necessary to serve upon him a certified copy of the same.</p> <p>Record. — Of Court of Another State. — When Properly Authenticated. — Jurisdiction.—The record of a court of another State is properly authenticated where the same is attested by the clerk of such court, under his hand and the seal of the court, and the judge of the court certifies that the person who signed the certificate was the clerk of the court, and that the attestation is in due form of law. In such case jurisdiction of the foreign court will be presumed. '</p> <p>Evidence.— Excluding. —Tending to Establish Defense Formerly Adjudicated. — Damages.—Injunction.—It was not error to reject evidence in an action for damages for failure to obey an injunction, which tended to establish the same defense set up in the injunction proceeding and determined against the defendant.</p>

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1934

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1895-06-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1On Petition fob Eei-ieabing.

Reinhard, C. J.

¶2-Appellant’s learned counsel complain that we did not in our former opinion pass upon all the questions presented by them in the record. The only undisposed of question discussed in appellant’s brief for a rehearing relates to the rejection of certain testimony proposed to be given by the appellant. He offered to prove by himself and another witness that he did not violate the order of the court embraced in the injunction, after the same was finally determined, for the reason that he had previously given and transferred the note sued on to one Parks, of Louisville, Kentucky, a nephew of the appellant, and that it was, in fact, said Parks who instituted and carried on the suit in the Louisville Law and Equity Court, and not the appellant, although the suit was carried on in the name of the latter, but without his knowledge and consentthat as soon as appellant was informed of the suit, he disclaimed any interest therein, and thereafter it was prosecuted in the name of said Parks, who was the real party in interest, and that the money was in reality col*417lected by said Parks, the appellant receiving none of it and having no interest therein.

Filed October 31, 1895.

¶3We think the court properly excluded this proposed testimony. The record shows that substantially the same-defense was set up by the appellant’s answer in the injunction suit. It was there averred in substance that Main had given and transferred the note in question to said Parks, and that appellant did not commence or instigate the commencement of the action or proceedings in the Louisville Law and Equity Court, and that he had no knowledge of said suit except such as he derived from the complaint, a copy of which had been served upon him with the restraining order; that he had no connection with said suit, and had not attempted and was not then attempting, directly or indirectly, to collect such note or any note, claim, debt or judgment whatever from said Field, and that he had no interest or property in said note transferred by him to his nephew Parks.

¶4The issue tendered by this answer was tried by the court and determined against the appellant. He . is therefore concluded by the same, and could not by the introduction of the proposed testimony again put in issue the questions so determined against him.

¶5Petition overruled.

/13/indapp/401 · .json · Public domain