The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-12-04
POLICE PAY is EXEMPT
From Garnishment Under Judge
KeIIy's Decision.

A pOliceman'S lot may not always be
a happy one, but policeman'S wages
enjoy a felcitOuS exemption from all
legal process. So says Judge Kelly in
a decision handed down by his honor
yesterday in the case of Peter Thau-
valid against PatrOlman Louis Calvin.
Mr. ThauWald had obtained a judg-
ment against officer Calvin for a GER
tain sum of money, and had hauled the
policeman before the court in supple
mentary proceedings. subsequently
Calvin drew his months pay, and spent
it in providing his family with the
necessaries of life. Thereupon the judg-
ment creditor asked the district court
to punish Mr. Calvin for contempt of
court for so applying his salary. Judge
Kelly vacated the order to show cause
r why Calvin should not be punished for
contempt. The following interesting
memorandum accompanied the order:
The defendant is a police officer Of the
City of st. Paul. In proceedings supple
mentary to execution the usual order Of the
court restraining defendant from dlsposIng
or or in any way interfering with any Of his
property, not exempt from execution, was
made and served~on the defendant. The day
after this service defendant drew from the
city treasury his salary, $71.75, for his serv-
ices as such policeman, and applied the whole
of it for clothing house rent, groceries, ETC.,
in other words, to the support of his family.
Defendant has filed herein an affidavit to the
effect that all his salary is necessary to the
support of himself and family.
The court is asked to punish this defendant
for thus disposing of his property in viola
ton, it is claimed, of the restraining order
before described.
The question arises, can the salary of a
police officer of the City of St, Paul be
reached by his creditor in proceedings supple
mentary to execution / am of opinion 1t
cannot. In Roeller vs.. Ames, SO Mimi, 135,
the supreme courtideeided that the salary Of
a municipal officer cannot thus be reached
And the decision was placed on the ground
that public policy forbids any interference,
directly or indirectly, with the payment of
his salary into the hands of such officer
This exemption, and practically for the same
reason, has been held to embrace an employee
OF municipality engaged IN hazardous lines
of duty, such as fireman. Sandwich Mfg.
Co. VS.. Krake, So n. W. R., 606. In this case
the court says: If he (the defendanO was
an officer the rule laid down by Roeller VS..
Ames would be directly in point. Why, then,
should not the services of a fireman be
deemed as important and as much of a public
municipal officer, thus indirectly recogniz-
ing policeman to be public officer in the
strict sense.
Now, policeman is a public officer in the
strict meaning of the term. The usual in
deia of public Office oath, tenure, dura-
ton, emolument powers and duties regulated
and prescribed by law. One conclusive test
seems to be where the rights and duties Of
the Office involve the exercise Of some part of
the sovereign power. He is not alone pub
lie officer, but, like fireman, his duties may
be often extra hazardous. So that under the
holding in Roeller Ames and Manufactur-
ing Co. VS.. Krake, the salary of this de-
PENDANT while in the possession of the city
was exempt from execution and cannot be
reached in these proceedings.
1t is not necessary to decide whether at all
= under what circumstances, after the sal
airy has been paid into such officers hand
and while he retains possession of it, the
service of order in supplementary pro-
ceedings will create lien on SUCH moneys
that disposing of it by the officer would
be a contempt, for the reason that in this
the order served on defendant affected
only his property which or. Oct. IA, 1885, was
mot exempt from execution" This money
then in the city's possession and was in
its then condition clearly exempt.
But will say, that as public policy pro-
tects the salary while i'll the city treasury in
order that it be paid promptly and with GER.
tainty to the officer that the public may
have from him efficient and embarrassed serv
ice, certainly to take that salary from his
hand the moment after it is paid to him viii
defeat the very object of the rule. OF course
the rule as to the exemption of the money
while in the city's possession is not founded
upon the idea that the municipality should
not be annoyed with answering garnishee Oh
other trustee processes. 1t stands on tn.
higher idea that to deprive the officer OF hi
salary will in effect deprive the public of hi.
efficient service.