Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-10-11
Cannot Garnishee Wages Of a
Person When Latter is Out
or the State.
DECISION or WIDE INTEREST.
Was Handed Down This Morning by
Judge Richie and Settles
Much Disputed Point.


neither the defendant against whom
Judgment Is rendered nor the funds at
tempted to be garnlsheed are within
the State of Utah was handed down
by Judge Richie OF the district court
today and settles that matter so far
as the district court Is Concerned the
case which is entitled Walker Bros. 4
Fyler company against Charles Ravens
defendant, and the Chicago 4 North
western Railway company gariishee'
was heard en- banc by the four judges
OF the district court and the decision
handed down by Judge Richie is con-
cured IN by a majority OF the JUDGES
OF the court.
The decision holds that where
neither the defendant nor the property
or funds garnisheed are within THIS
state the garnishment will not hold
good The Judgment Of the court In
this case is therefore IN favor OF the
garnishee. The decision Is a very I'M
portant one and will no doubt put
stop to a number Of garnishment pro-
ceedings OF a like character. II APP
pears that Judgment was rendered
against Havens in the justice court OF
Gustaye Kroeger in this city In 1901.
The defendant left the state and se-
cured employment with the Chicago 4
Northwestern In the east, Francis'G
Luke, the attornew for plaintiff. served
garnishment proceedings upon the
agent of the railroad company In this
city and tied up about $50 wages COM
ing to Ravens for services rendered for
the company IN the east. The company
appealed to the district court and the
decision today Is is favor OF the rail-
road company which Is the garnishee.
The decision which is of great interest.
follows:
The garnshee IN this case Is corpora
ton not organized under the, laws or this
state and not operating railroad wlthln
this state. II has an agent Of the sort
commonly called commercial agent,
who solicits business for It, to be UNDER
taken and carried out by that corpora
ton upon its lines OF railroad In other
states.
There was no personal service upon the
defendant who was an employe OF the
Chicago 4 Northwestern Railway com
pany tho garnlshte, In Michigan, per-
forming his duties there, with his wages
payable IN the state OF Michigan. The gar
ishment was served on the commercial
agent Of the garnishee in this state
The cases upon which the plaintiff relies
and among others c. r. ! + Rg. vs.
sturm, ia Y. s 10, and Harris vs. Balk,
l9S u. S. 2l5, have been carefully con-
sidered. The article IN 81 Central Law
Journal. 265. entitled Exit Of the Doc.
trine Of Situs," has been filed as brief
and also considered.
II seems elementary. aside from the
cloud of sophlstries which have been
woven around the discussion OF cases of
this character, that the defendant must
either be personally within this state or
have property situated within the state In
oder to afford a foundation for juds-
ment against him.
We think the true doctrine on principle
Is set forth after a very able discussion
By the supreme court Of appeals % West
Virginia In the case Of PennsyNania Kali
road Co VS. Rogers, 50 w. Va, 400; 81 l..
Il. a. lis
we think the argument contained In thu
case above cited. brief extracts Of which
have been given. Is unanswerable. As
there pointed out the opinion OF the SUI
preme court Of the United states IN G, r.
l. q T.. X. Co. VS. Strum. ia L. S, no Ia
not inconsistent with the Views so ex.
pressed. t52 w. Va) In that case the Chi
cago, Rock Island G. Pacific Railway COM
pany garnished I'm an Iowa court. was q
corporation OF the state Of Iowa, and tho
service was made upon It in the state Of
lite domicilc. which Is not the fact in this
case
The argument In favor Of the conclusion
reached By this court Is also well stated
IN the opinion OF the supreme court OF
Kansas In the case Of Missouri Pacific
Railway Co. VS. sharritt - Rams. 375; %
Pac. go
The only opinion Of our own supreme
court bearing upon the question Is con-
tained In few Hines IN the cases Of Losee
is made to rest solely upon the rroposi-
ton that the Union Pecflc Railroad eom-
pany, the garnlshee in that case was
operating its road and doing business
within the Territory of Utah. Such Is not
the fact in this case.
Some courts have entertained the Idea
that a mere debt Is of so intangible a
character that II has not actual situs any,
where and therefore can be seized by fol-
lowing one who owes the debtor wherever
he may 20. regardless OF all written in
structions. The injurious effect OF at
tempting TO found principle upon that
notion were not so apparent when the
person only OF the debtor was to be fol-
lowed. He seldom left his domlclle and
could in any event be In but one place
at a time. Under conditions Of the pres
emit day corporations, such an the gar
nlshee, have what are called commercial
agencies In nearly every important city
IN the United States and frequently In Eh.
rope To adopt a doctrine which would
give the creditor practically the option OF
selecting any forum be pleases where such
an agent could be found 70 garnish, no
matter how remote from both creditor and
debtor. would frequently inhict great
hardship.
When the amounts involved are small
the hardship Of defending case IN some
remote region would DO great, and in
many II not tho majority OF cases, would
amount to practical denial TO the de-
fondant sued Of his day In court"
whether he had Just defense or not. II
would generally deprive him OF his rights
OF exemption. Such n doctrine would be
pornicious In the extreme In It's practical
application as well as vicious In princl-
pie. To quote the language q the supreme
court Of Wisconsin With reference To n
different matter "the unanimlty with
which this view Is stated by some courts
Is perhaps only equalled by the naucity %
reason BY which Il Is supported"
Neunemaker VS. State, los n w 6S
The majority Of the judges concur In
this opinion. Judgment Will be for the
garnlshee.