The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-08
Rarnishment on a judgment is a suit have fhev nof7

Rarnishment on judgment IS suit' have they not?
 Mir. Weakley-Yes, sir.
 Mir. Hood-Now, wouldn't this pro- vision authorize the garnishment of the income of the city on Judgment against the city?
 Mir. Weakley--I think not. desire to state that the courts have decided upon the question of garnishing the cities, that 1t is in violation of public policy, and the universal rule has been 1t cannot be done, and I do not think this section affects that at all. Mir. Foster-Under this section, could not they be sued for false imprison- ment for arrests made by officers of the city? Couldn't they be sued for any thing that might be claim against an individual person?
 Mir. Weakley-I think not. MT. Foster-1t strikes me 1t Is very dangerous, and might bring all sorts of suits against these corporations. Mir. Weakley-I cannot conceive why | municipal corporations shall not be subject to suit just as any other cor poration.
 Mir. Weatherly-I would like to ask what is the necessity for this section! Is there any unreasonable restriction under the existing law upon the right
 
 their liability to be sued?
 Mir. Weakiey-None that I know of.
 Mir. Weatherley-Then what is the necessity for this section, inasmuch as there seems to be some reason in the objections that have been made to 1t by the gentleman on the floor?
 MT. Weakley-I state to the gentle man from Jefferson that the Commit tee found this section, Or almost a sim 9.. rr.WnC
 MT. Weatherly-I want to call your attention to the definition of corpora tions" as used in the old Constitution to show that your idea is not correct. I read from Section IS of the present Constitution:
 '.The term Corporation as used in this Article, shall be construed to in- clude all joint stock companies or any associations having any of the powers or privileges of corporations, not pos sessed by individuals or partner ships"
 Now, does not that indicate that mu- nicipal corporations are not included in the Article?
 Mir. Weakley-I move the adoption of the section.
 Mir. Hood-I offer an amendment.
 The amendment was read as follows:
 Amend Article on Municipal Cor porattons by striking out Section l.' Mir. Hood--I think 1t very dangerous to adopt this Article with Section l contained in It. As has been stated by the Chairman of the Committee, ana by another member of that Commit tee the Supreme Court of Alabama have held that the word corporation" as it appears in the present Constitu- ton, does not mean q municipal cor poration Now, 1t is true that under the present Constitution, the courts of the State have he'd that the income and revenues of a municipal corpora tion could not be garnished because it would be against the public policy. It Is true, however, that in this state, tne Supreme Court of the St2te have held that q garnishment on judgment IS suit in the sense In which 1t Is used ln this State. Now. certainly, the com mittee does not propose to permit the income and revenues of the cities and towns of Alabama to be garnished by creditors of the cities and towns. AS l view 1t. this section would clearly give any creditor who had Judgment against any cities or towns In tnlS State, the power to garnish the income or revenues of any such cities or towns in this State.
 low them in case of Judgment to use the funds for the ordinary expenses O. the government Tn the CLUES ana ,o"h' for it's debts?
 Mir. Food-I think 1t would; and for these reasons, I move to strike from the report Section l.
 MT, Merrill have an amendment to the amendment.
 The amendment to the amendment was read as follows:
 Amend Section 1 by striking the following words: Tn like manner as natural persons and add in lieu there of as may be prescribed by law MT. Weakley-We will accept that. The President-The chairman indi- cates the willingness of the Committee to accept the amendment just read. Mir. Hood-I will accept the amend ment offered by the gentleman from Barbour, or I will ask unanimous con sent to withdraw the amendment Of fered by myself.
 Mir. O'Neal U.auderdale)-l object. MT. Merrill--The municipality is part of the government of the State, subdivision thereof. and the public pol icy that regulates suits and actions against a city or municipal corporations Is not the same that applies to pr:vat" corporations, and it ought not to be so With the sections as brought in by the Committee. it puts them upon the plane of all private corporations and all tndi- viduals. That should not be done, and the amendment that l suggest, 1t strikes me. relieves 1t from all that diff fcultY, and leaves it where 1t is now, and where II ought to stay.
 MT. Weathcrly-! think the amend- ment proposed by the gentleman from Barbour, puts the matter in worse condition than it was before, authoriz ing municipal corporations to sue ana be sued in such manner as may be pro scribed by law. at least infers that the Legislature will have to prescribe method by which they may sue and be sued. Now there is a system that has grown up in the courts whereby municipal corporations sue and are sred. It is built up by cases and the adtudicR tion of the courts We all know what 1t Is. There Is no neces- sity for any change. This whole See ton is utterly useless, and it may bring some very great hardshps and some very gaeat inconveniences and nmbarrassments In the future in lines and directions which we cannot now foreseS. Nun %ipal corporations are an arm ot the state Government.
 Mir HoWze-Did you ever see municipal charter that did not have this provision in it that they could sue and be sued?
 MT. Wea 'herly-NOt in that language They can sue and be sued, of courCe.
 Mir. O'Neal-Do you think that un- der the provisions of this section that .n,,lI he Iayia5 i,Dop f