Ludvickson v. Severy State Bank
Ludvickson v. Severy State Bank
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The National Bank of Medicine Lodge appeals from a judgment against it for $128.63 and interest.
The action was tried on an agreed statement of facts, which showed that the plaintiffs were never in Barber county, but were residents of Greenwood county; that they shipped a carload of fence posts from Severy to H. W. Skinner at Medicine Lodge; that the plaintiffs drew a draft on Skinner for the price of the posts, and deposited the draft with the Severy State Bank for collection, which bank passed the draft for collection, through its Kansas City correspondent, to the First National Bank of Medicine Lodge; that the draft was presented by the bank to H. W. Skinner, and'was paid by him; that he
Civil actions for the recovery of money “must be brought in the county in which the defendant or some one of the defendants reside or may be summoned.” (Civ. Code, § 55, Gen. Stat. 1915, § 6945.) The jurisdiction of justices of the peace is “coextensive with the county wherein they may have been elected, and wherein they shall reside,” but, “in all actions against two or more defendants jointly or jointly and severally liable, and who live in adjoining counties, such action may be brought before any justice of the peace of the county wherein either of the defendants shall reside or may be summoned.” (Jus. Civ. Code, § 1, Gen. Stat. 1915, § 7696.) Greenwood county does not adjoin Barber county. A person within the county where the action is brought, who is indebted to the defendant therein, may be summoned to appear before the justice of the peace to answer concerning such indebtedness (Jus. Civ. Code, § 37, Gen. Stat. 1915,' § 7732), but “no garnishee summons shall be issued in any case in which the defendant is a resident of the state of Kansas, unless the action be brought in the county in which the defendant at the time resides or wherein personal service of summons may be made upon him.” (Jus. Civ. Code, § 54<x, Gen. Stat. 1915, § 7751.) Publication notice is provided for in garnishment proceedings, but “if the defendant be a resident of the state of Kansas, no service by publication or otherwise shall be had upon him except in the county in' which he resides or wherein personal service of
The justice of the peace was without jurisdiction of the defendants in the action before him; the summons in garnishment .was issued in violation of law; and the proceedings thereon are void. “Payment under void garnishment proceedings is no defense.” (12 R. C. L. 856. See, also, 20 Cyc. 1146, 1147; Drake on Attachment, 7th ed., §§ 691-696; 2 Shinn on Attachment and Garnishment, § 708; Waples on Attachment and Garnishment, 2d ed., § 926.)
“Any judgment rendered or other action taken by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and open to attack collaterally as well as directly.” (Kelso v. Norton, 74 Kan. 442, Syl. ¶ 2, 87 Pac. 184, and cases cited on page 446.)
Roberts v. Hickory Camp Coal and Coke Co., 58 W. Va. 276, is closely analogous to the present action, and the reasoning therein is conclusive against the defendant. Numerous other decisions might be cited, but it is unnecessary to do so.
The First National Bank of Medicine Lodge is not protected by its payment under the judgment of the justice of the peace, and the judgment against that bank is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- P. Ludvickson and C. Ludvickson, Partners, etc. v. The Severy State Bank (The First National Bank of Medicine Lodge, Appellant)
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. Garnishment Proceedings •— Before Justice of Peace — Service on Defendant by Publication — Justice Acquired no Jurisdiction. An action was commenced before a justice of the peace of Barber county against parties who had never been in that county, but who resided in Greenwood county; summons was issued and returned unserved, and notice by publication was given. A bank in Barber county was garnisheed, and it answered that it had- money belonging to the parties sued. Judgment was rendered against them; and the bank, under an order of the court, paid into court, out of the funds in its possession, sufficient to pay the judgment and costs. Subsequently, the parties sued commenced an action against the bank to recover the mo.ney that had been paid into court. Held, that the garnishment proceedings and the judgment of the justice of the peace were void, and that payment thereunder did not protect the bank in the action to recover the money.