The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1895-04-02

issue this character of process The Act
consists of single section Pur S9l pl. %,
and the only language found in it by
virtue of which, it is believed to be iusti
fed, is this, and justices Of the peace
shall have jurisdiction of attachment in
case for such purpose The language
'attGchme in case, Sit is claimed war.
rants this new character of process, and
we therefore have sunmons and at
tachment combined, and the laborer finds
his wages attached at the beginning of
the proceeding and before it is determined
that he owes anything to any on8. There
would seem to be no greater reason why
the wages of labor should be subjected to
this character of process, than that mohey
at interest or any other charaoe er Of
property should be. If injury results to
defendant by an unfounded claim the
act affords him no protection, although
his property is seized and detained at the
very Inception of the proceeding, and be-
fore 1t is shown that he owes the plaintiff
penny. 1t would seem but reasonable
that il such power is to be exer.
cised, it should be plainly conferred by
the act, and some protection afforded the
defendant. Two decisions are given in
support of this claim. The first is
Thompson VS.. GLASGOW, 2 Pa. Dist. R. I'll,
in which Judge Martin, of Lawrence
county, sustains the right to such process,
but sets aside the proceeding because the
defendant had right to The exemption
and the justice had not allowed it. The
act OF 1889, which denies the defendant
the right to the exemption, seems to be
restricted to attachments founded on
judgments obtained for board and as
there was no judgment in the case, but
the attachment issued with the summons
he held the defendant was entitled to his
exemption. If this conclusion is correct,
then it practically nulliles the act of
1876, for it is indeed a rare thing for a
Iaborer to have more than the amount of
the $500 exemption to get from his em
ployer Hence the attaching creditor
would take nothing by his process. save
the privilege of paying the costs, and a.
a matter of policy he had better obtain
his judgment first and issue his attach
ment after and avail himself of the act
of 1882 In Smith VS.. Dingus, 2 Dist
Rept. (Pa) 7i0, Judge Gunnison, in
deciding a case stated, holds to the opin
ion that the attachment can issue at the
commencement of the proceedings to
collect debt for boarding, and claims
that the remedy given is an original pro
cess, and not in the nature of an attach
ment execution to issue after judgment
Upon the other side of this question we
have a number of rulings to the contrary,
In Mckinley vs. McDonough, % w. N. C.
$40, Judge Archibald holds that judg
ment must first be obtained. In Thatcher
VS.. Beam IA G @. r. 1O9 Judge Gunster
so rules. In Garden VS.. Scott, / Kulp 1876,
Judge Rice expresses the same opinion.
In Carlin vs.. Holland, Pa. Dist. r. ia,
we have tbe same opinion of Judge
Woodward to the same effect, and in
Dillon VS., Treverton, mot reported) Judge
Savidge is said to have expressed the
same conclusion The ground upon
which Justices Martin and Gunnison
base their conclusions appears to be re-
moved by the statement of the Supreme
| Court in Weisman VS.. Weisman, 1873, Pa.
st. SO. We there find this language
The appellant contends, however, that
the attachment should have been an
/ attachment in case, and not an attach
ment execution. What an attachment in
case is has not been made to appear. 1t
is true the act of May Sth, 1876, does use
this expression, where it authorizes an
attachment of wages for board, but it
manifestly means an attachment in such
case. Any other reading of it makes it
insensible. There is evidently clerical
or typographical blunder in the act as
printed The foregoing would seem to
show that the proceedings in this case
must be set aside. There are other ex.
ceptions, some of which may be worthy
of consideration. The Judgment entered
is not of the usual formal character, it
is lin favor of the plaintiff and against
the defendant for Sl5, and costs of suit,
$780, and there is nothing upon the
subject that the garnishee be thereupon
discharged as against the defendant of
the sum attached and levied Under the
authorities the defendant wolld have
right to the exemption, in the absence of
judgment upon which to found the
attachment Hence if the ruling of
Justice Martin, supra, is correct, in this
respect it would be fatal to this proceed
ing, since there is no finding as to what
amount the garnishee holds. Nor is there
a Judgment against the garnishee that
would permit of an execution for the
collection of the amount out of its own
goods, &c, should it fail to pay the
same"
Free to everybody, tonight, clam
choWder. at the Scheihy Housa