The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1875-07-08

R.R. Co. Garnishee and
Appellant.
The plaintiff and defendant were and
are residents Of Ohio.
April 18th, 1875, plaintiff brought suit
before Justice Johnston on a judgment
he obtained against defendant March =,
1873, before a Justice of the Peace OF
Linking county, Ohio, and on April 70,
1873, writ OF garnishment was Issued
by Justice Johnston, commanding the
officer "to attach the personal property
and claims of the said defendant found
within the county," which was served the
same day on the Il. u. .. X. Il. Company.
July =, 1873, the b. " o. X. X. Com
pany, us garnishee, filed a written an
swer That on the 2Sth day OF April,
1873, it did not have in its possession or
under its control, in this county or
State, "any personal property or money
belonging to the said Houston, nor was
it in any way indebted or liable to him
in any sense Of money payable OF to be-
come payable within "this county or
State. 1t further answered that it is
a corporation under and by virtue of the
laws of Maryland, operating a
railroad in this county and State;
and that it operates and controls line
of railways in the State of Ohio from
Bellaire to Newark, and thence to Colum-
bus; another from Newark to Sandusky
City. That the Ohio lines connect with
the West Virginia line by bridge over
the Ohio river ut Bellaire' that Houston
is, and WAS on April rs, 1879, its en-
ploycc ut Newark, Ohio; that he and
Morath are, and then were, residents and
citizens of Ohio; that the cause of action
arose in Ohio; that on the 18th day oil
April, 1873, it owed Houston s. for
wages due him, but that no money be-
longing to him was in It's possession or
under its control in Ohio county, and
shat By the contract Of said company
,cith sad Joseph j. Ho~stoM any a'd all
sums OF money due linn as ,oageS, 'cere IL
be pa,d 10 hun IN the State Of Ohso
and at no other piacs," and that it
hsd like contracts with all employees on
its Ohio divisions.
IN the filing OF this answer the Justice
noted in his docket that "Garnishees an
swered that they were indebted to defen-
dant fifty dollars, and paid Justice same
under prot, 81" and after sundry adj ourn-
mcnts, the Justice, on October 9th,
1873. ovcrrulrd defense of defendant and
adiudge Judgment in favor of plaintiff
for forty-nme dollars and ten cents and
costs
The costs are taxed at $40.
From tins iinal and only judgment or
order, the B. " O. r. R. Co. appeals No
vember 5, 1873.
Inspection OF the transcript leaves one
in doubt whether the real defendant ever
appeared, aud whether by the word 'dc-
tendant" the justice means the real de-
fcndsnt OF the railroad company. The
defendant was returned not found, no
second summons issued as required by
Section 202, chapter 90 of the Code.
Is this, then, such II judgment or order
from which the garnishee may appeal, rs
provided in section POS, chapter 90, OF
the Code, which was then in force?
Is the "adjadged Judgment against
the defendant or against the garnlshce!
If the former then, there is 10 "ordcr'
affecting the garnishee us required by
section POI, Chapter 80, os the Code, for
while execution may issue on such "Or-
der' and Il Judgment.
Ii BY the word defendant, the justice
meant the railroad company, then the
Judgment for $40 10 and costs, So 40, az
gregatiug SOL %, was for more than Is
pretended the company was liable if lia-
bic at all and was error.
This case has been ably argued and
long considered MS test case designed to
effect cases of its class COM
ing into this Court on appeal.
Several interesting and apparently novel
questions have been raised and consider
ed, which | do not find it necessary to
pass upon and form. determination of,
which | shrink. But might seem want
ing in proper respect for the zeal shown
by counsel and the general interest felt
by this bar, if did not say generally
that il is matter for grave considera-
ton for our Legislature and Courts,
whether we will furnish to the citizen of
a sister State against a citizen of the
same State remedy there refused, and
expressly inhibited on contracts there
made and liabilities there incurred
They came here for remedies which
their chosen residence and place of con-
tract refused them; they make sort of
drag net OF our courts, employ the time
and money Of our people i'll maintaining
iuries and officers they are not taxed to
support; they cucumber ourdockets, and
thus, in sense deprive our own citizens
of the means OF speedy redress.
Assuming it true, as urged, that in its
relations TO this cause, the b. & o. K. K.
Co. is non resident; it seems hard
ship to put non resident, being found
in our jurisdiction, to the trouble and
vexatious delays incident to our attach
mcnt laws, to come here ut q time remote
from service from any part of
our Union aud answer at the demand
either Of resident or NONRESIDENT, the
amount OF his Indebtedness to another
non idcnt The answer may involve
the solution of intricate legal questions
and the examination of long ana tangled
accounts before IN officer or court and.
on suggestion by dissatisfied party, be-
fore court and jury. 1t would seem
contrary to a wise State policy to subject
capital and men of large business rclu-
tionS to such annoyauces while soiourn
ing among us, and would possibly lead
them to avoid Ills and deprive us of many
advantages in trade and intimate and
pleasant relations with business men.
1t is also u great hardship to subject
such defendants to such proceedings, at
tended Us they always are with unusually
heavy costs-thc costs in many cases eI-
ceedlng the original demand.
But passing these and other considera-
tions urged, and taking the deposit as
fixing the amount OF garnlshees liability,
and this appeal as recognition that the
"adiudged Judgment was such "order
against it rs contemplated by said sec
ton POS, brings us to the question: Was
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com