Case ID: iowa_139/html/0754-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ladd, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Addie Steltzer v. Geo. Condon, Mrs. Geo. Condon, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., Appellees, and N. F. Dignan, Appellant.
    1 Gárnishment: assignment of claim by debtor: notice. A garnishment can reach nothing except what is owing to or belonged to the debtor, and therefore is unaffected by reason of the fact that the plaintiff had no notice of a previous assignment by defendant of his claim against the garnishee; nor is its effectiveness impaired by the fact that the grantee had no notice thereof until after service of garnishment, where such knowledge was obtained in time to protect the garnishee from liability by interposing the assignment in its answer.
    2 Same: priority of claims. Code section 3047, as amended, has no application as between the assignment of a claim by a debtor and service of process of garnishment; it applies only to successive assignments.
    3 Appeal: assignment of error. An assignment of error must specify the ground of objection to the judgment or order appealed from.
    
      Appeal from Perry Superior Court. — Hon. W. H. Fahey, Judge.
    Wednesday, October 28, 1908.
    Prior to April 5, 1907, Geo. Condon and wife became indebted to plaintiff on four notes aggregating $75, on which $10 had been paid and some interest had accrued. Upon executing the first of these, he made an assignment of wages earned or to be earned as employe of the Chicago', Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, his wife joining and both duly acknowledging the instrument. During April and May, 1907, Condon worked for the company, and there- is still owing by it “therefor $80.77. This action was begun July 8, 1907; judgment being taken by default against the Condons. The company answered by stating its indebtedness to Condon and the circumstance that N. F. Dignan had sued the Condons May 9, 1907, causing the company to be garnished as supposed debtor, and that therein July 11th judgment had been entered against it as garnishee for $65.77, the amount necessary to satisfy Dignan’s judgment against the Condons, from which it had appealed, and it prayed that Dignan be made a party defendant. The court so ordered, whereupon Dignan answered that-, when the railroad company was garnished, it had no notice of the assignment, and that the latter was invalid because not acknowledged as required by law, in that the notary was an interested party. On motion of the company, its appeal from the judgment of Dignan against it as garnishee was consolidated with this action of plaintiff on the assignment, and on hearing judgment was entered ordering the $80.77 owing by the company to be applied, first, in payment of the costs of suit; second, in satisfaction of plaintiff’s judgment against the Con-dons; and, third, that anything left be paid on Dig-nan’s judgment against Condon. Dignan appeals.
    
    Affirmed.
    
    
      Gidding & Winnegar, for appellant.
    
      Shortley & Kelly, for appellees Steltzer and Con-dons.
    
      While, Clarice & Clarice, J. C. Cook, and H. Loomis, for appellee, Chicago, M. & St. P. By. Co.
   Ladd, C. J.

Of the wages owing Condon as an employe of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company earned during the months of April' and May, 1907, the sum of $80.77 remains unpaid. To whom shall this be awarded? To plain- , tiff as an assignee under an instrument purporting to transfer the same to her dated October 4, 1906, or to 'Dignan, who caused the company to be garnished as Condon’s supposed debtor May 9, 1907? That Dignan was without notice prior thereto is not important, for the process of garnishment can reach nothing other than may have been owing or belonged to the judgment debtor. Nor is the effectiveness of the assignment impaired by the fact that the garnishee was not informed thereof until after the service of the process of garnishment. It learned thereof -soon enough to interpose the same in its answer, and that was timely. Shinn on Attachment & Garnishment, Sections 538, 539; Jones v. Banking Co., 104 Ala. 252 (16 South. 11); Savage v. Craig, 150 Ill. 161 (37 N. E. 312). The company might protect itself from liability as garnishee by showing the assignment at any time before judgment. McPhail v. Hyatt, 29 Iowa, 137; McCoid v. Beatty, 12 Iowa, 299; Large v. Moore, 17 Iowa, 258.

Appellant argues that the above rules are obviated by the amendment to section 3047 of the Code enacted by the Thirty-First General Assembly (Laws 1906, chapter 148), which provides that “no sale or assignment by the head of the family of wages, whether the same be exempt from execution or not, shall be of any validity whatever unless the same be evidenced by a written instrument and if married unless the husband and wife sign and acknowledge the same joint instrument before an officer authorized to take acknowledgments; and assignments of wages shall have priority and precedence in the. order in which notice in writing of such assignments shall be given to the employer, and not otherwise.” It seems to be thought that the last clause gives precedence as between an assignment and service of process of garnishment in the order of notice in writing; but such is not its purport. No allusion is made to anything other than assignments in writing, and these are given precedence in “the order in which notice in writing is given.” It would be a perversion of the language employed to construe the statute as contended by appellant. Plainly the legislative intent was to go no further than to lay down a rule by which to determine priority as between successive assignments.

There were many rulings on the admissibility of evidence bearing on the interest of the notary taking the acknowledgment to the assignment, on which error is not otherwise assigned than by saying that there was error in “the rulings of the court excluding evidence offered to show the disqualification of the notary.” The argument is equally general.

Manifestly this is too indefinite to challenge consideration on appeal (McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. McCormick, 128 Iowa, 155), and, as no interest on the part of the notary was made to appear, the judgment must be, and is, affirmed.