Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-01-06

0eeasaes BY judge Greese In . Gas
0f Local 1alegese.

CARNB0EED
Oeeesoea BY JudGe Creese In Cas4
sf Lecai laieSess.
| In the Distric, Court helding term al
at Seattle. Motion to vacste gsrnishse
| process against the City of Seattle
Mills vs.. Murphy Il Stewart.
| ls the City of Seattle liable to gar
nishment! An answer to this question
Is conceded TO be decisive of this me-
ton.
| She is liable to suit can plead and
be impieaded IN ali courts of justice
| eau contract and be contracted with.
| tChsrter, sec. % Garnishment is a
suit. DRAKE on Att, sec. 452, aud Gases
oited.j
An action may be maintained against
coonty, Incorporated town, school
district, or other public corporation of
like character in this Territory" I" eth
er upon contract made by such county
or other public corporation in its cOrpe-
p0rate character and within the scope
OF It's authority. or for An injury to the
rights OF the plaintiff arising from SOU g
act or omission of such county or other
public corporation" (Code, SEC 662.)
Seattle. therefore, may owe a debt,
and II she does she may be sued for il
in any court of competent Jurisdiction.
A debt owed by her is chose in action,
an item OF property in the assets of her
creditor.
By section 18l of the Code, all per-
sons'' owing any debts TO defendant in
attachment, at the time of service upon
them OF q copy of the writ and notice.
shall be, unless such debts be paid to
the Sheriff, liable to the plaintiff for
the amount of such debts until the at
tachment DO discharged or any judg
ment recovered by him be satisfied"
BY section lS2. ANY person owing debts
to the defendant may be required to
attend before the court or Judge
and be examined on oath respect
ing the same. A municipal corporation
ID a person Dillon on Municipal
Corporations, 8 a.; Bray vs. Waliing-
ford, ~ Conn. 4l6.) But since section
lS2 speaks of requiring the person"
garnisheed to attend before the Court
or Judge, and corporation cannot in
Its own person do so. question sug-
gests itself whether the ''persens' of
sections lSl and l82 are not to be eon-
sidered as exclusive Of corporations.
If they are, tnen private as we'll as
public corporations should be excluded.
which, in view Of the history and pre-
vaience of garnishee process, would be
unusual law. Another section of our
Code relieves the difficulty by showing
that corporation, invisible and intan-
gible Though it be, is able, or at least
may be required, ito appear" before the |
Judge or referee in a garnishee pro-
ceeding after execution. (Sec. 1888.
II seems to me, therefore. that the |
question of municipal parnishment is
for this Territory by the |
provisions have cited. Gen
eral words are used, withou: express ex-
ception. Chancellor Kent. in Demarest
vs.. Wynkoop g Johns. Ch., l42), lays
down the correct rule for such case, as |
follows: General words must receive |
a general construction; and il there be |
no express exception the court can create |
none." Counsel for the city cites Buff
ham va. City of Racine (26 Wis, A49) to |
the Contrary. But that was a case de-
cided by a divided bench of three |
judges, in which the minority, led off by |
the Chief Justice. announced the rea-
son and the minority the practice.
All the variety of arguments adduced |
BY courts against Rarnishment of muni- |
cipalities seem reducible to one, namely, |
the argument from inconvenience. |
That IL AN unsatisfactory kind of argu- |
ment with which to overthrow a statute. |
And many courts hold that the moon
venience is on the other side. The
whole subject is discussed in the note
TO Divine vs.. Harvie, 10 AM, Dec., 200,
and in Dillon on Municipal Corpora
tions, sections "a and Is and foot notes.
Where garnishment of municipalities is |
unaffected by statute, the true principle |
would seem to be, as stated by Mr.. Dill. |
lon. that "a municipal corporation |
should be EXEMPT from liability Of this |
character with respect to it's rev.
enues and the salaries of it's |
officers, but where it owes an
ordinary debt to q third person |
the mere Inconvenience of having to an |
swer az earnishee is no sufficient reason |
for withdrawing it from the reach # |
the remedies whi0h the Law gives 20 |
creditors of natural persons and private |
Dillon, NJ. c., SEQ. 65.) |
But our statutes must be considered as |
settling all questions so far as debts |
strictly an alo0ous to debts amenR nat
ural persons and private corporations |
are concerned. Perhaps NO further in |
tent should be attributed to the statute |
than to pat like debts, by whomsoever |
owing, on like footing. This is as far |
as I am now prepared to express an |
opinion. and it is sufficient to show that |
the motion must be denied.
January 4, 1884. GREENE, j.
X. OsB0RNK, for the City.
q. n. HALLxR, for Judgment creditor.