The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P obtained a judgment in the amount of $151,749.98 against Howard Meister (D) in a defamation action. One year later, P obtained an order to show cause in the defamation action why Meister (D) should not be ordered to turn over to the sheriff certain shares of UTI (D) stock. At the hearing, P and Meister (D) were represented, but UTI (D) was not. Counsel for P estimated the value of this stock in excess of $300,000. The court held that it did not have the power to direct the delivery of the shares of stock to the sheriff. The court enjoined Meister (D) from transferring the stock, and upon P's request, it also enjoined UTI (D) from transferring title to this stock on its stock books. The injunction decree was served on UTI. Fourteen months after the issuance of the injunction, UTI (D) registered a transfer of the shares of stock to the American City Bank and Trust Company. P obtained an order to show cause why UTI (D) should not be held in contempt for violating the injunction. UTI (D) challenged the jurisdiction of the court to find it in contempt. UTI (D) testified that the transfer was made pursuant to a foreclosure agreement on June 20, 1971, between the American City Bank, the Continental Bank, UTI, and Meister (D) and his family. P was given no notice of the agreement. UTI's (D) corporate officer admitted that he was aware of the injunction, though he was never personally served with a copy of it; but because he believed the injunction was jurisdictionally defective and because he feared that UTI (D) would be liable to American City Bank if it did not register transfer of the stock, he decided to transfer the stock in disregard of the injunction. The court found UTI (D) in contempt. P also had a second action in another court claiming a conspiracy to defraud P and stop any collection of his defamation judgment. P had also commenced three garnishment actions against UTI (D) as garnishee defendant in aid of execution on the judgment. D appealed. The issue is whether, in view of the failure to make UTI (D) a party to the injunction proceedings, the injunction was binding on UTI (D).

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.