The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-01
Knocked Out by Judge GiIIett.
Hammond Tribune.

Hammond Tribune
Judge John H. Gillett, in the Circuit
Court of Porter county, yesterday handed
down his opinion in the garnishment pro-
ceeding instituted during the May term at
Valparaiso by the Farmers National Bank
against Charles A. Carr. The suit was
quashed for the want of an attachment. In
arriving at his decision Judge Gillett said:
1T is to be observed that the only radical
change in the new act is that it denies all
right of exemption against process in gar
niShment, except that a householder hav-
ing not exceeding $25 due him as wages
may hold the same as exempt while re-
naming in the employment wherein the
debt accrued to him. Was it the legislative
purpose to deny to a person, as against
process in garnishment, all exemption, ex-
cept as provided in the new act, notwith-
standing the fact that he had done no act
justifying the attachment of his property?
This conclusion cannot be reached unless
the garnishment amendments can be segre-
gated from the attachment act. 1t is
claimed that the language of the second
section of the amendment to the effect
that in all personal actions arising upon
contract, express or implied, or upon
Judgment or decree of any court gar
nishee writ may be taken out whether a
writ of attachment has been issued or not
authorlZes the treating of the garnshment
act as providing an independent procedure
II VIII be noticed that what is waived is
the issuing of the writ of attachment and
not the atf1davit, and, it may be suggested
IN passing, that the very eXplicitnesS of
the Legislature in providing that the at
tachment writ should not be necessary sug-
gests legislative purpose not to entirely
StSfegate garnishment proceedings from
attachment. AS to the word all, used in
the language quoted, it does not necessarily
mean the whole Of every one of In Phillips
VS.. State eX. rel. Saunders, Is Ca SIS it
was said:
:" One is amazed in casting a glance over
our statute book to find how often this
form of expression occurs frequently signi-
Tying, as here. not absolutely all. but all of
d particular CLASS only. Indeed, 1t seems to
be common in all writings, lay as we'll as
legal, sacred as we'll as profane, and the
gene rality of the phrase is frequently to be
reSll alned IN an act not only by the con-
text but by the general form and scheme
of the statute, demonstrative of the in
tention of the legislature
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
mot only the consideration stated. but
other sound rules of statutory construction
lead to the conclusion reached Process Of
garnishment has always been regarded as
an equitable attachment. Drake on Attach.
Section 453; Anderson's Law Dictionary. til
tie garnishment. A writ of attachment is
used to seize tangible property, but as a
debt, which is intangible cannot be
debtor to be garnished or warned and
thereby converted into a trustee This
practice has so long obtained as to be viz
tually part of the common law, and the
presumption is against any innovation up
on the common Jaw, further than the case
absolutely requires. Potters DWarris on
Statutes, 1856. The attachment and garnish-
ment statutes are not only to be considered
as in pari materia, but as parts of the same
chapter and procedure, the amended sec
tons are to be read into the statute in lieu
Of the amended sections. A statute must
be construed with reference to the whole
| system of which it forms part. =
| The general terms Of q later statute will
often be restricted where by prior laws
subjects naturally falling within such gen.
eral terms have been classified and made
subject TO distinct and diSSimilar regula-
tons Switzerland on Statutory Construc-
ton, Sec. 2S4.
In Section 2SS, of the same work, it is
| said: An amendatory act and the act
and no portion of either is to be held in
operative if it can be sustained without
wrestling words from their appropriate
meaning In Wallace VS.. Scales, SO Miss,
SO, it held that a statute in relation
to attachments against steamboats, and
other water craft was in pari materia with
| the general attachment law and that they
should be construed together.
1T is the conclusion of the court that
in actions arising upon money demands
| other than for torts, it is competent to take
out a writ of garnishment upon complying
with the procedure of the amendatory act
provided that before cOncurrently there
with the plaintiff also files his affidavit in
attachment. Lastly, | may observe that
counsel for the fleunder plaintiff in this
action who is also contending against the
construction adopted by the court, stands
hoist with his own petard,' for 1t is by
virtue of the provisions of the attachment
sections alone that person can become
| a fleunder plaintiff. The proceedings in
garnishment are quashr!ed for the failure to