The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-09
GARNISHEE LAW UNFAIR
SUPERIOR BENCH DECLARES THE
NEW MEASURE yOID.
The Classification in II Too Arbitrary
The Distinction Between EN-
ployed and Unemployed Men.

The three Superior judges of Marion
county have furnished an opinion on the
garnishee law passed by the last Legisla-
ture. which, In effect, holds the law to be
invalid. Judge Carter read the opinion
yesterday with Judges McMaster and Har-
vey sitting with him. The case came up
in the Superior Court on demurrer. Justice
of the Peace Hay issued a writ of garnish-
ment against the Big Four Railway for the
wages of James b. Davis, an employee The
action was brought by Hugo Lehritter to
recover a judgment for $3.50 There was
due Davis in wages the sum of $3.50 Davis
claimed the 5000 exemption of a household
er, ana desired to place this before the
court in the form of answer, but Justice
Hay declined to admit it and rendered
judgment against Davis for $3.50. Davis
then brought mandamus proceedings in the
Superior Court TO compel the justice of the
peace to vacate the judgment and allow his
exemption under the law giving to debtors
a right to exempt $500 from execution.
The defendant Hay then filed a demurrer
to the proceedings, which the court passed
on yesterday. IL it's comments upon the
law as enacted by the Legislature of 1897,
the court says:
uon 10, X. 5. 1894, debtor has the right to
exempt 5000 in value Of property, such as
he may select from execution or other
hnal process. 1t has been held that this
right extends to property attached or gar
nisheed. Estate VS.. Manly, 10 Ind, 8. Haas
VS.. Shaw, 81 Ind, 3S4.) Under the express
243, no exemption is allowed against
garnishment except as therein provided.
me amount therein provided is $50 in
wages. and no more. We then have these
provisions:
Under the former law the full sum of
$500 may be exempt, and this might all be
in wages if the debtor has so much due
him. Under the latter law $25 of wages
only may be exempt. Now, it is clear that
greater sum of 5000. The two provisions
are in irreconcilable conflict, and, if the
latter be valid law, then the former has
been repealed in so far as it applies to
garnishee proceedings where wages are
garnisheed. Section 243, as amended by
the act of 1897 extends the right of eX-
emption of wages to the extent of $25 to
householders who may be or remain in the
employment of their employers, but denies
that right to householders who are not
still in such employment.
If this section shall be held to be valid.
then we might have this situation: Two
men working for the same employer, on
opposite sides of the same bench, both be-
ing househOlders, to each of whom there
might be due on Saturday evening the sum
of $2o for wages, the one, on account of
lack of work or other reason, for no fault
and the other continued in such employ
ment, and if on Monday morning both
should be sued and their wages garnisheed,
the one employed could exempt his wages,
while the one without employment and
n f5fref0re' needing them the more could
CLASSIFICATION TOO ARBITRARY.
IF the Legislature can legally make such
a provision, then it could with equal right
provide that the employees of railroad COM
panies who are householders should have
an exemption of $25, $500 or any other sum.
and that householders who are employees in
factories should not have any exemption
whatever Undoubtedly the Legislature
has the power to make some classification,
but any classification made must be rea-
sonable and natural one. 1t has no right
TO make an arbitrary, unreasonable and ar
tificial classification.
1.-The Legislature has made a classical
ton of houSehOlders and nOnhouseholders
in the exemption laws, and such classitca-
ton is a natural and reasonable one, one
of the principal objects to be attained being
the protection of the debtors family and
home A classification which would eX-
tend the right of exemption to Presbyter-
ians and deny it to Methodists, or would
give it to bachelors and withhold it from
widoWers, or give it to farmers and with
hold it from merchants, is an arbitrary UNI
reasonable and unnatural classification, but
not more so than to the classification be-
tween employed and unemployed house
holders. The distinction between employed
and unemployed householders is purely ac
cidental, and there is no basis in reason
why the exemption should be extended to
the one and denied to the other.
THE power to declare AN act Of the Cen
eral Assembly unconstitutional is one of
the highest possessed by any court, and is
to be exercised with the utmost care and
only in the clearest cases. But where a
statute is clearly in violation of a constitu-
tional provision, it is the duty of the court
to so declare, and it is a duty which it
should not hesitate to perform. Our Con-
stitution says: The privilege of the debtor
to enjoy the necessary comforts of life
shall be recognized by wholesome laws, eX-
empting d reasonable amount of property
from seizure or sale for the payment of
any debt or liability thereafter contracted
1T is pursuant to this injunction in the
organic law that our exemption laws have
been enacted. They mark the progress
from the debtor prison of the common law
to the enactments which have been the
outgrowth of a more advanced and humane
civilization, and our courts have repeatedly
held that such laws should have a liberal
construction in accomplishment of the pur-
pose for which they were enacted. We are
of the opinion that upon the facts stated
in the petition and admitted by the demur-
rer thereto, that an appeal would not fur
nish an adequate remedy to the relatOr,
and the demurrer to the petition is, there
fore OVerruled."