{
  "id": 5468369,
  "name": "George Mulligan, Appellee, v. Frederick Alsen et al. (Defendants). Standard Trust & Savings Bank (Garnishee), Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mulligan v. Alsen",
  "decision_date": "1921-11-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 26,489",
  "first_page": "615",
  "last_page": "618",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 Ill. App. 615"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        816444
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/51/0073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 Ill. 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3224213
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/185/0580-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 230",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2770299
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/86/0230-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 Ill. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 Ill. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3088592
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/142/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Ill. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2875697
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/115/0390-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 Ill. 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5549644
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/181/0582-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 5873,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.239482728339918e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5109060412402422
    },
    "sha256": "740608e1a9d51e36de2961155ab14e992d961bea99cab4d343d4844d9c77f95f",
    "simhash": "1:8eada0b95b06050b",
    "word_count": 994
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:09.223782+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George Mulligan, Appellee, v. Frederick Alsen et al. (Defendants). Standard Trust & Savings Bank (Garnishee), Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an attachment suit brought against Frederick Alsen and G. C. Martin, trading as Alsen & Martin and as Alsen & Company, in which appellant was served as garnishee. The return, of the writ shows service thereof on Alsen, and that no property of defendants was found on which to levy, but nothing with regard to service on Martin. The court sustained the attachment and entered judgment against Alsen for $1,500. He has not appealed.\nThe garnishee denied indebtedness to the defendants or either of them individually, but admitted that \u201cit carried a deposit by Frederick Alsen, agent,\u201d the same person as the defendant Alsen, who opened and drew on the account in the name of F. A. Alsen, agent. From a judgment for $1,190.60, the balance left in said account, and costs against the garnishee, this appeal is taken.\nAppellant urges (1) that the judgment against Al-sen individually is void; (2) fhat consequently that against the garnishee is void; and (3) that the garnishee is not liable for costs. '\nOn the first point it is contended that if personal service could not be had on the codefendant Martin, notice by publication should have been given, as provided in section 22 of the Attachment Act (Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 11, \u00b6 22), and that without service of process on him the court could not proceed to hear the merits of the issues. If the court was without jurisdiction then, of course, the second point is well taken and the judgment against the garnishee is void. (Pierce v. Carleton, 12 Ill. 362; Iroquois Furnace Co. v. Wilkin Mfg. Co., 181 Ill. 582.) But if the court had jurisdiction, neither point is tenable, and if there were errors or mere irregularities in the proceedings against the original defendants, they alone could raise such questions. (Empire Car-Roofing Co. v. Macey, 115 Ill. 390; Dennison v. Taylor, 142 Ill. 45; Hogue v. Corbit, 156 Ill. 544.)\nThat the court had jurisdiction of Alsen and the subject-matter cannot under our practice he questioned. Under section 26 of the Attachment Act (Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 11, \u00b6 26) the practice in attachment suits shall, except as otherwise provided by said act, conform to that in other suits at law, and under section 14 of the Practice Act (Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 110, \u00b6 14) judgment taken against one of several defendants, sued as partners, is valid (Felsenthal v. Durand, 86 Ill. 230; Sherburne v. Hyde, 185 Ill. 580), and a summons in the nature of a scire facias may make a defendant not served a party to the judgment in a suit against partners as in cases of other joint debtors. (Sherburne v. Hyde, supra.) And under section 7 of the Attachment Act (Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 11, \u00b6 7) the power is expressly given to proceed against one joint debtor where the others are not served.\nThere would seem, therefore, to be no question as to the validity of the judgment against Alsen and the right to proceed thereon in attachment against the garnishee.\nAnd we think the evidence was sufficient to show the indebtedness of the garnishee to Alsen. There was no proof to show that the account in question belonged to any other person than Alsen, and in the absence of any evidence to show that he in fact controlled the account as an agent or trustee for some particular person or persons, it will be presumed the account belonged to him individually, and the term \u201cagent\u201d will be deemed merely descriptio persones. (Young v. First Nat. Bank of Cairo, 51 Ill. 73.)\nNo good reason is assigned why the garnishee in making an unsuccessful defense is not liable for costs. Accordingly the judgment will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nG-ridley, P. J., and Morrill, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Castle, Williams, Long & Castle, for appellant; Lloyd M. Brown, of counsel.",
      "Frank P. McGinn, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George Mulligan, Appellee, v. Frederick Alsen et al. (Defendants). Standard Trust & Savings Bank (Garnishee), Appellant.\nGen. No. 26,489.\n1. Garnishment\u2014want of jurisdiction over original defendant as affecting judgment against garnishee. In a garnishment suit, if the court had no jurisdiction over the original defendants, a judgment against the garnishee will be void.\n2. Garnishment\u2014right of garnishee on appeal as to errors in proceedings against original defendants. Errors or mere irregularities in the proceedings against the original defendants cannot be urged on appeal by the garnishee alone.\n3. Judgment\u2014validity when against one of several defendants sued as partners. Under section 26 of the Attachment Act (Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 11, 1f 26) and section 14 of the Practice Act (Cahill\u2019s Ill. St. ch. 110, U 14) a judgment taken against one of several defendants, sued as partners, is valid.\n4. Parties\u2014defendant not served as party to judgment in suit against partners. A summons in the nature of a scire facias may make a defendant not served a party to the judgment in a suit against partners as in cases of other joint debtors.\n5. Garnishment\u2014presumption that deposit in bank as \u201cagent\" belonged to depositor individually. In an attachment suit against partners where the fund attached was a deposit in the garnishee bank in the name of one of the partners, designated in the account as \u201cagent,\u201d the term \u201cagent\u201d will, in the absence of any evidence that he controlled the account as an agent or trustee for some particular person or persons, be deemed merely descriptio personae, and it will be presumed that the account belongs to the depositor individually.\n' 6. Costs\u2014liability of garnishee making defense. When no good reason is shown on appeal why a garnishee making a defense is not liable for costs, the judgment against him therefor will be affirmed.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Richardson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1920.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 29, 1921.\nCastle, Williams, Long & Castle, for appellant; Lloyd M. Brown, of counsel.\nFrank P. McGinn, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0615-01",
  "first_page_order": 645,
  "last_page_order": 648
}