Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-02-10
THAT nc STRIKE.

Gereral Manager Chappcll Of tho Alton
said. They have up cause for unpl1-
moss but IL thoy fclt uirt they hnd q
grievance they would hc accorded % b'1r'
iug' A. to The Alton granting my W
crcnHc which m.eht bn demanded, me-
could not say That would depend 'n-
firplv on the other r1nds II coupclWo
icli that fhr demand was just. the Alton
would probably yield to thc MINORITY.
The matter w0uld. however, bc cuuriu.
cred by council VI general managers "
" was presented.
Tho Illinois Central through Supchn-
tcndDnt J. g. IIurtlgau, under whose lur-
ifIiciiOu strike Boo Chicago would come,
has received no dcmDud from it. men.
Mt llariippu personally thDught Chicago
people would not feel ANY sympathy Tor
men who chose Worlla fair wear Tor
asking un Increase Uu % scale when hhd
been in cn,'t for the last ten years
General Superintendent H. .lpr of thc
Chicago. Burlington and Quincy said hc
knew nothing except whni Do saw boo the
papers General Superintendent COLLINS
u( the Chicago Milwaukee mad So. Paul
had not yri been notified of amy iissui-
isfnclion among bis mcu. As 90 the
granting OF nny increase asked hc could
not say.
Superintendent Snubor off thc Chicago
and Northwestern said his men bad mydo
no demands ON his roId. and Dec would
not discuss anything which was yet be
the future
Superintendent SutGu Of the Lake Shore
aud Michigan Southern stated that hi7
mon seemed satisfied mud until they
came tu him with demand Tor Increased
wages ur shorter hours. 10 would De- FOLLY
for him Geo ,uy what his road would do.
RAILROAD GARNlsuEES
L. Lon
80 nu opinion Wus handed down cove
pipg tho lucNulu whether the Union
Pacific cuuld lc hold ns gurnishor iu q
rutu where @ WIu4 wages were assigned.
Horace q. Mgtnull Uu Dec ~. $50.
brought Hu uriiuu against j. W. hin.
cr1d before % usiiUr of the pence, 100
which action writ ui attachment was
i-auol under which the Union Pacific
Railway company was guruishgrd. No
tI,r Of gIwishm"ut vus served uu the
company Dec 81 l~SD Thereafter
the company answered that prior to tho
mrmshmcut and on oct - lNNi 10 uc-
prptrl the following assignment.
Omaha. Or. 80 1850
Mr. H. YOUNG. Auditor
BOAR Sir rlcusp pny 60 Mr.. i. j..
Burns. Denver Cole my salary us fore.
man Oh house ut Omaha. durus the
months oi October, November aud De
rnmbrr 1850 aud January February.
.N
my indebtedness Coo MIR Burups bon the
sum of $500. Yours truly
j. W. KINCEAp
THAT Burns clHlucd md owned 800 The
wage, rurupd by kiuHvud us rWpluyr ui
said company according to thu tenor of
util assignment Tint ever since its date
the gnruishcp had paid HE wugos earned
for The months stated bon said order 10
Burns aud ou Jan g. $500 paid Burns
under uid order thc wngrs earned 10y
kMugud'
The Justice entered Judgment against
the EtrWsl,v on its answer for NlN51.
tn snru-hcv sued ont writ of error
to tho superior court eff the city of Couu-
,l Blun- and the superior court affirmed
tbc hulIug ul the Justice
At the proper time The guruishuc cnus-
rd q certificate To be executed aud filed
hy the Judge ul uid Coutt certifying Ger
tain questions Of law to the supreme
court FOR itN determination. which were:
J. The right Of u p,trnu iu the cr-
ploy of another 60 assign future earnings
600 the Nbsvu,r ui % contract, under
which the 1,ngcs are 10 h. earned. su
ns 20 vest in the assignee nIl thr right
lille and Interest ut the uBsguor to the
snmC
. Whether in case AN existing
contract rs necessary tu the validity of
tho assignments There is amy prvsump.
such % contract ur must the contract
Dee plead and proved
3. Docs the instrument set ont
in law amount 90 ana assignment so us
tn vest iu kurus Cine wages earned by
ktuvood to the exclusion ut the attach
ing creditors
The lust question was frat taken M
boy counsel IN thoir hrcf and "a FIRST
answered iu the opinion of the supreme
court 300 the Affirmative.
"lt "a insisted 10y plaintiff Tint us
the order was addressed to r. Young
auditor it would not bind thr rnilwuy
company. aud That am acceptance OF IL
hy the gurnishvc would not ut least as
against plaintiffs, bind the company
says the supreme court, True, the
order ~ not directed To the railway conn
puuy, nor uu tx face 90 Young as an
oNyinl of thv Company. hut Il has
often been held TINT u0 particular form
ot words need loo used 20 constitute am
assignment of q debt Nh that Is nee.
essnry s that the intent 10 riTcctuatt
an assignment shall clearly appear
That iulput may Uppcnr from the writ
| Ing itself or ii may hv shown otherwise
Moore va, lowery, 20 Iowa, 33S. Me.
! MILAN VIZ. Wchh n SON 20 Iowa, 1-S:
| Am and Eng, enc, pr sri
"lhv fact chat the urlpr is informally
| drawn concluded The court, "is of no
! importance in Wow of the effect riyru
| u boy the parties aud their manifest
| intent u thvn kucpil's wages Wprr
| m law NsSlgunllr. question hrrrn flor
! considered the urlrr having boon ian.
| tcpdcd to assign them Ia Rurus. and
| having been accepted aud acted upnn.
! ls though informal rueuUUl us am as.
| sigpmVnt
AZ 20 the FIRST and third questions
| the court held la the affirmative and iu
| speaking of the FIRST question. said.
| "nhc true rule ~ Tint an assignment
| of wages To he earned is good NJ nc.
| ceptod, aud II nc the time h rs made.
| there is an existing engagement or em-
/ ployment hy virtue of which wnrps nrp
| being and In the future may reasonably
! be- expected to be- earned, even though
| there is NO contract or fixed timr ol
| employment And IN the case of "A con.
| tract for work on labor an assignment
! of the fruits OF it may hc gnod though
the labor to bo performed under IL mas
| not yet boon commenced
In concluding, the opinion IN ma fol.
| lows And as We hold that the pxit.
tencc OF contract Is not necessary h
| the assignment Is based On wages to bt
earned IN an existing omployment wt
need nPt consider the second question
| Reversed"
| COTTON WEIT IMPROVEMENTS
Uuder It's present management IA,
Cotton Belt lines Ia Texas are heme
brought up to state OF perfection uhnt
. | ~