The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-01-09
NOVEL POINTS INVOLVED.
DECISION RENDERED BY JUDGE
HART YESTERDAY.
Assignment of Brussels Fees as
constable Did Not Cover His
Later Earnings.

Charles Heisen, and which was appeal
cd to his court. The principle involved
is quite an important one, and some
novel points are involved. The opinion
is as follows:
This is an appeal by the defendants
from the Justices Court of Sacramento
City, from the judgment made and en-
tered therein on the 9th day of Octo-
Der, 1897, in favor of the plaintiff and
against the said defendants.
The facts, according to stipulation
Of the attorneys on both sides, are
these: In the year 1895 the plaintiff,
while the duly qualified and acting Con-
stable of Sacramento City, to which
Office he had been elected at the gen.
eral election of 1894, executed to c.
Heisen, in consideration of money loan
ed ID him by said Heisen, certain as
signments in blank, of any moneys
which might be due or become due to
the said plaintiff
AT this time the plaintiff was engaged
in no other employment than that of
exercising the duties of the aforesaid
office of Constable. Later on the plain
tiff ceased to hold the office of Con-
stable, and. some time subsequently to
that event, secured employment with
the Southern Pacific Company, one of
the defendants herein, and continued
to work for said company up to the
time of the commencement of this ac-
ton.
On the 4th day of January, 1897,
plaintiff filed his petition in insolvency,
and was thereupon adjudged by this
court an insolvent debtor, and in April,
1897, was duly discharged. Among the
Items incorporated in the PLAINTIFF s
schedule of liabilities, attached to his
petition to be declared an insolvent
debtor, was his indebtedness to the
defendant HeiSen. In July, 1897, the
defendant Heisen filled out one of the
blank assignments or orders executed
by plaintiff as aforesaid and filed it
with the paymaster of the Southern Pa
cific Company for the purpose of secur-
ing the wages which We're earned by
the plaintiff from the Southern Pacific
Company during the months of June
and July, 1897, amounting aggregately
to the sum of $S7 10.
Upon receiving information that Hell
sen had pursued this course the plain
tiff, through his attorney, notified said
paynaster of the Southern Pacific
Company not to turn said money over
to Heisen upon the said assignment or
order; and. thereafter Heisen executed
to the said Southern Pacific Company
an Indemnity bond, thus enabling him
TO draw the money. and which he did
draw and now has in his possession.
Theeeupon the plaintiff brought suit
against the Southern Pacific Company
DUNG the course of proceedings there
in, in the Justices Court Heisen inter-
vened
There are several questions presented
in this case, and they are:
Firsr-Were the assignments or ord
ders executed, as above stated. by
plaintiff to defendant Heisen. as secur-
. ity Tor money loaned by the latter to
the former. intended to be of and for
the fees and emoluments which might
then be due or become due to the
plaintiff for services as such public Of
fetal, and, if so, were they void?
Second-Assuming that they were
given in contemplation of such public
employment and the emoluments to be
derived therefrom-and, therefore, void
We're they void for any purpose what
soeyer?
Notwithstanding that they We're not
void Tor the reasons suggested in the
previous questions = plaintiff having
ceased to act in the capacity of Con-
stable, curing his incumbency of which
the assignments or orders were made
did they become functus officio so far
as wages We're concerned earned by
HIM from another and different employ
ment, which could not have been
thought of or contemplated at the time
OF the execution of the assignments?
Fourth-W hatever may have been
the effect of the assignments made I'M
der the circumstances stated, did they
constitute such lien as that they
would retain vitality under the law.
Notwithstanding the fact that the plain
tiff secured his final discharge, as an
fnsolvent debtor, from all obligations.
including the one in dispute?
1t VIII not be necessary to discuss
all these propositions in the determine
tion of this case
The assignments or orders, referred to
above. are the ordinary printed blanks
used by people engaged in loaning
money upon such securities. in which
the assignor assigns over all his inter-
est and title in and to any moneys
which may become due him for any SER
vices he may perform, without refer
ence to the character of such services
or to the time when the same are to be
rendered.
According to the agreed statement of
facts herein. the assignments in ques-
ton were signed by the assignor in
blank--that is TO say, there was no
writing except the signature of the as
signor.
1t becomes necessary, in order to de-
term.ne whether the said asst gnments
included the wages earned by the plain
tiff In his employment with the South
ern Pacific Company. to look at all the
circumstances present at the time of
the execution of the assignments and
thus arrive at the intention of the
parties to the same. The plaintiff, as
is admitted, at the time of the execu-
ton Of the assignments, was the incum-
bent CT a public office and had served
but few months of the term thereof
Can it be said that at that time he
mad In view, or contemplated, any other
or different employment, and. particu-
larry. such employment as involved the
duties Of a laborer in the railroad
shops? | believe that, at the time of
the traasacton in question, there could
nave been nothing more remote from
the mind of the plaintiff than that he
would secure employment with the
Southern Pacific Company in the year
1891. Nor do / think that the defend
ant lleisen could have so thought. and
that there was nothing further from his
mind, when the assignment was made
than that the plaintiff would be so en-