The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-18
GARNISHEE LAW UPHELD
DIFFERS, HOWEVER, BUT LITTLE
FROM THE PREVIOUS ACT.
Construction Placed on 1t by the SUE
Dreme COurt--Taxes on the Old
Morris Homestead.

The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a
decision, written by Judge Monks, which
upholds the constitutionality of the gar
nishee law passed by the last Legislature,
but places a construction upon it that makes
1t differ but slightly from the law in opera
ton before its enactment. What is known
as the garnishee law provides that gar
nishee proceedings can be instituted wheth-
er an action in attachment has been taken
or not, and that the wages of householders
are exempt to the sum of $25. The law
itself is an amendment to the sections on
attachment and garnishment in the civil
code of 1881, and the court held yesterday
that the enactment of 1897 must be con-
strued in connection with the sections of
the law it amends.
Under the law of 1881 "a resident house
holder is entitled to an exemption of 5000
in any kind of property he may designate,
and can take the whole amount in wages
due him If he should so elect. The law of
1897 says that "a householder's' exemption
In wages cannot exceed $25. The court holds
that these statutes do not conflict, and that
the act Of 1897 does not expressly or by i'm
plication repeal the law of 1881. it bases
it's opinion on the use of the words resident
householder and householder in the sew
eral enactments The opinion says:
Applying the rule that exemption stat
utes are to be literally construed in favor
OF the debtor. and that repeats by implica-
ton are not favored, it is clear that the act
OF 1897 did not deprive the appellant. a res
ideut householder, of his right TO select his
wages up to 5000 as exempt.
1t will be observed that the act of 1897
provides that the wages Of a householder
his wages in excess of $25 shall not be ex-
empt, while the general exemption law al
lows 5000 to resident householders only. Con-
STRUNG these statutes together one applies
to resident householders and the other, the
act OF 1897, to householders who are not res
some other Jurisdiction"
The opinion then says that the act of 1897
is to be further construed as to allow a
householder of another State no exemption
in wages in excess of $25, and this in no way
deprives the resident householder of his
right to take his wages as exempt even If
they amount to 5000. This discrimination
against nonresidents the court holds, does
not render the law unconstitutional. But
though the law does not practically alter
the amount of exemption in wages as con-
strued by the court, 1t makes a change from
the former practice by making it no longer
necessary to issue q writ of attachment be-
fore issuing one of garnishment. Speaking
upon this point, the court. says:
when the law of 1897 is construed in con-
nection with the code of 1884, it is evident
that 1t was not the legislative intent that
any one should be authorized to commence
proceedings in garnishment and obtain sum-
mons, without also filing an affidavit in at
tachment, either at the time or before he
filed his affidavit in garnishment.
Now, as before the act of 1897 was passed,
an affidavit in attachment must be filed as
well as an affidavit in garnishment before
the garnishee summons can issue. 1t
must be held that an undertaking in gar
Iishment is only necessary when no bond
in attachment has been fled and when
such an attachment bond has been filed, no
undertaking in, garnlshment need be fled
Judge Hackney dissented from this part
Of the opinion.
The case before the court was that of
Samuel b. Pomeroy against Mary Lewis
Reach in which. Mrs. Beach brought action
for garnshng the wages of the appellant in
the Porter County CireutCou The lower
court gave a jidgufent44n favor of Mrs
Beach, and the decision handed down yes
terday reverses this finding.