The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-04-05

Y
eoaccaling them, or refusing on REQUEST TO
expose them, or by asserting any calm to
them himself, or in any other manner con-
verting them to his own use. He would
then be liable to the trustee or sarnishee
process. (See Pettingil Us. Androscogsin
K. L. Co., ID; SWEET Us. Brown, S Pick,
IFS; Hooper Us. Day, 10 Maine, Sc; Balk-
ham Is. Lowe, 20 Maine. 389.]
In the case o! Spraeue Us. Steam Nav.
Co., SO Maine, 500 decided in 1851. the
| treasurer OF the company was garnished by
the cXecuton-creditor OF the defendant
company. 1t was held that he was not la-
Die to garniShment. Says the Court (Apple-
ton, {. D., delivering the opinion):
"A corporation can act only by and
through its officers. A payment to the trca-
| surer Is payment 10 the company. The
funds paid are with the corporation, and
i'oelon" to the same. The treasurer holds
| them only as an officer of the corporation.
He holds no funds in his individual right.
III he did, he would cease to hold them as
| an officer Of the corporation. To charge
the treasurer OF corporation for ais funds
IN has hands officially would imply that
when holding such funds he was its debtor
and not its official agent. a corporation
can hardly be, summoned rs trustee Of
itself. But to charge its officer while holding
funds rs such would be to charge it rs
trustee Of itself. 1t would be to deter
mine that the trustee held the funds as
an individual, not az an officer. The sup
posed trustee individually has no goods,
effects, or credits OF tbe defendant corpora
ton, entrusted to or deposited with him as
its treasurer. He holds the fundsas an off,
Ger OF the corporation. They are the funds
held by the corporation through its trea-
surer. 1t is the oniv mode by which Il cor
poration can hold its funds. Such funds SO
held are not the goods, effects, or credits of
the principal dcbtor, entrusted or deposited
with the supposed trustee, but are the funds
of the corporation in its olcn custody and in
charge of its o,cn appropriate officer" This
same principle was again reafHrmed by the
Supreme Court of Maine in 1874. [Sec
Bowker Is. Hill, 80 Maine, 1G@; see also.
Neur Us. 0Fallon, garnishee, IS Missouri
Reports, 277; Dobbins Us. Orange. &C..
Railroad Company, 81 Georgia, Dol
In the case q McGraw Us. Memphis and
Ohio Railroad Company, 5ColweIy 434, de-
cided by the Supreme Court Of tennessee
in 1865, it was held that the treasurer OF the
company could not be garnished BY an cx-
eclltion-crcditor Of the defendant com
panv. ..
Judge Smith, in delivering the opinion of
the court in the case, says 1t is rast every
kind OF holding that constitutes the posses
sion designated, nor every possibility Of
power over the property necessary 80 make
1T garnishable. . A clerk whcshas ac-
cess to the merchants safe, and has charge
OF the merchants goods and the power to
receive and pay out money from the
drawer or safe, has not, by reason OF such
charge and power, the garnishabIe posses
sion and control OF the merchandise
and money. Such custody and control may
exist with the clerk, and still the Inercilan-
disc and money may not be in his possession
and control in such wise as to MAKE them
the subject Of garniShment in his hands.
The custody and power must go beyond such
occupation or holding and service to consti-
tute the garnishable possession and. control.
Where to draw the line and precisely to de-
fine the rule is difficult, and not sale to at
tempt. 1t is safe, however, 10 say
that where the actual and SubSta stial pos.
session is with the owner, and the relation
OF the servant or employee to the properties
is such only as is incident to the employ
ment and service, the properties are not
subject to garnishment as being in the pos
session and control OF the servant and eln-
ploye."
we been able to find any authority for the
proposition that the treasurer Of a corpora
ton is liable to punishment by 81 execution
creditor Of the defendant corporation. On
the contrary, we are satisfied upon principle
and authority that he cannot be so charged.
The summons against Taylor, the treasurer,
must therefore be dismissed.
1t remains to inquire whether or not the
ticket agent OF said company occupies II
similar relation to the company as That OF
the treasurer.
In this case the garnishee was and. is the
ticket and freight agent OF the defendant
company, and atits principal office i'll the
city Of Petersburg, whose duty it is to sell
tickets to passengers collect freights, and
to pay over to the treasurer daily the moneys
so received and collected, for the faithful
performance of which duties he has exc
cuted and delivered to the company his
bond, with approved security. 1t is con-
tended by counsel for the plaintiff, with
much ability and ingenuity, that though the
treasurer OF the company may not be liable
to garnishment, yet the same rule which
might apply to the treasurer does not
apply to the ticket agent, who is a
subordinate officer, and to sustain this pro-
position they rely in part on the case Of the
Central Plank-Road Company as. Summons
Il Dotes, - Ala, heretofore referred to, in
which case the Court held that the toll
eatherer OF the company was so liable, bas!ng
their decision upon the ground that the
garnishec in that case did not materially Diff
fer from any other agent who collects
money for his principal. But we think this
case cannot be sustained OH reason, princl-
ple, or authority. There does and must CT
necessity exist q distinction in this respect
between an agent OF IN individual and an
agent Of a corporation. An individual may
act for himself, but a corporation, as such,
has no personality except in the persons OF
its agents. BY them alone it can possess its
property and exercise its corporate func-
tons. In doing this their acts and possessions
are its own, not cOnStructtucly, as in the case
OF agents Of persons, but actually. In this re-
spect corporations differ from persons. In
one that of persons) the act or possession
Of the agent is conStructrc}y that OF bis
principal; in the other it is actualtyso. [Sce
Pettingill rs. Androscoggin Il. r. Co.,
herein before referred to.] This dlstinc-
ton, we apprehcnd, is manifest.in principle
and recognized by unquestioned authori-
ty. We are also referred by plaintiffs coun-
sci, as sustaining their position, to the case
OF Gilman and ats. Us. Miss. and IIl.>Tele-
graph Co., reported in LIST Otto, u. S. SUI
preme Court reports. In that case the, ques-
tion as to whether or not the ticket agent OF
the company was liable to garnishment by
the eXecution-creditor Of the defendant COM
pany does not appear by the pleadings to-
have been raised in the court below. LII It
was, as no exceptions were taken and filed
to the ruling Of the Court, 1t was not there