Opinion
August 31, 1964 —
September 29, 1964.
APPEAL from an order of the county court of Milwaukee county: MARVIN C. HOLZ, Judge. Affirmed.
For the appellants there was a brief by John R. Craite and Thomas P. Doherty, both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Mr. Doherty.
For the respondent there was a brief by Max M. Seidelman, and oral argument by Tom E. Hayes, both of Milwaukee.
This is an action by plaintiffs, Arthur and Charlotte Thompson, husband and wife, against William Sloan, defendant, and the First National Bank of Waukesha, garnishee-defendant, in the nature of a garnishment after judgment in aid of execution.
The garnishee complaint stated that a judgment of $9,812.55 was entered against the defendant Sloan in favor of plaintiffs and that it is unsatisfied. It also stated that the garnishee-defendant is indebted to or has property in its possession or under its control belonging to the defendant.
The garnishee-defendant's answer admitted holding assets of the defendant and defendant's wife as joint tenants but denied being liable to defendant Sloan or holding any assets of defendant as sole owner. Defendant Sloan's answer admitted the judgment but alleged that such judgment had been duly adjudicated in bankruptcy. In addition, defendant alleged that the garnishee-defendant had no property in its possession or under its control belonging to defendant other than property owned by defendant and his wife as joint owners. Defendant Sloan, in conjunction with his answer, brought an order to show cause why plaintiffs' action should not be dismissed. Both in his answer and in his affidavit in support of his order to show cause, defendant alleged that the property jointly owned by him and his wife was not subject to garnishment for the debts of the defendant alone.
A hearing was held on the order to show cause, and after oral argument the court issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' action. From this order the plaintiffs appeal.
In a companion case decided today, Thompson v. Sloan, ante, p. 626, 130 N.W.2d 256, we have held that the judgment which is the basis of the instant garnishment was properly satisfied because of the judgment debtor's having received a discharge in bankruptcy under sec. 17, sub. a. of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA, sec. 35 (a) (2)).
Since the underlying judgment was lawfully satisfied, the garnishment in aid of such judgment must necessarily fail. Jefferson Transfer Co. v. Hull (1918), 166 Wis. 438, 166 N.W. 1; Leonard v. Yohnk (1887), 68 Wis. 587, 32 N.W. 702; 1 Collier, Bankruptcy (14th ed.), p. 1588, sec. 17.05. There is no occasion, therefore, for our determining the question of the right to garnishee a jointly held bank account in connection with a debt owed by only one of the joint owners of such bank account. Other cases in which we have declined to resolve questions which would have no practical legal effect on the pending controversy are Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Fort Howard Corp. (1956), 273 Wis. 356, 77 N.W.2d 733; Swanson v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. (1953), 264 Wis. 274, 58 N.W.2d 664; Veitch v. Schlepp (1952), 262 Wis. 565, 55 N.W.2d 914.
By the Court. — Order affirmed.