The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-01-08
DEER CASE OPINION
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
 REVERsEs ALABAMA COURT.
Important Law Principle is Enunciated as to Double Payments of Wages in Garnishment
 proeeedings.

| courts to recover from the railroad company wages due him after the same had been condemned in a Florida court
 by garnishment proceedings, and had been paid by the railroad company into the Florida court, Deer secured Judgments in Alabama 1 from magistrate court, to the City ] Court, and them the Supreme Court of 1 the State. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States on writ of error by George W. Jones, of Mont | gomey, Assistant District Attorney of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, who submitted an exhaustive brief.
 As the points involved are of so much l ! interest to workingmen as we'll as to l corporations the statement of the facts | | Involved and the opinion of the highest | court in the land are herewith repro duced. From the printed brief prepared by MT Jones the facts in the case are shown as follows: .'The Federal question presented by tho writ of error in this case is, wheth- CT the Supreme Court of Alabama, in rendering a judgment in favor of F. E. 1 Deer, and against plaintiff in error, has | failed to give full faith and credit to a
 garnishment judgment previously rend- cred against plaintiff in error for tho same indebtedness by court of the 1 State of Florida, and whether it has. | in rendering said judgment, violated the l provisions of Article ", Sec. 1 of the 1 Constitution of the United States and | of the Act of Congress approved May | 26, 1790, entitled An Act to prescribe l the mode in which the public acts, re- l cords and judicial proceedings in each
 State shall be authenticated so as to
 take effect in every other State" GU. i s. Rev Stat. 905.)
 1 "On November 18th, 1901, a civil ac- | tion for $19,S5 was commenced in the
 Justice of the Peace Court of L. l.. Charles, Washington County, Florida, by C. c. Brock, plaintiff, vs. F. F. Deer,
 defendant and the Louisville and Nash
 vile Railroad Company. garnishee.
 "The defendant (Deer) being non
 resident, service was had upon him by | publication, in accordance with the l Statutes of the State of Florida. The
 Louisville and Nashville Railroad Com 1 pany, as garnishee, was bror rht into
 said court by service of process upon ] a business agent of said railroad com pany, resident of the county in which l said suit was brought, in conformity | to the Statutes of the State of Florida. | "On rule day, to wit: December End, l 1901 the Louisville and Nashville Rail- | road Company, as garniShee, answered | the garnishment process according 10
 its terms, admitting an indebtedness 1 "On January 7th, 1902, judgment was
 duly rendered against said F. E. Deer | as defendant and against said Louis- vile and Nashville Railroad Comnany, l as earnishee, for the amount sued for, | pIus interest and costs. (amounting in 1 the aggregate to $24.36), and an order was made condemning to the satlsfac-
 tion of the plaintiffs demands Tn said suit, the said. sum of $24 S6, of the amount admitted to be due by said l garnIshee to said defendant.
 l ' "On January 11th, 1902, the amount
 so condemned ($24.s6), was paid by said l garnishee into said court in satisfac- ton of said Judgment.
 "On January 27th, 1902, (after the | sarnjshment proceedings aforesaid, and after the payment into the said Florida court of the said sum so condemned), the said E. F Deer sued plaintiff in error, (the garnishee), before B. H Screws. a Justice of the Peace in Mont gomery County, Alabama, for the ident- ical money which had been condemned bv. and paid into, said Florida court.
 "On April 7th, 1902, the Alabama Jus t,cA of the Peace rendered judgment for the amount sued for, to wit: $24.S6, and costs. in favor Of said F. E. Deer. and against plaintiff in error from which plaintiff in error appealed to the CltY Court of Montgomery Alabama.
 "On June 20, 1902, in said City Court | of Montgomery, Alabama the case was tried de novo in accordance with the statutes of the State of Alabama. and in that court judgment was on sald date, rendered in favor of said Deer against plaintiff in error for the said | sum of Twenty-four and 3s-100 Dol 1 lars ($24S6) together with interest and | costs. amounting in the aggregate to l Twentv-five and 35-1O0 Dollars, | (s2535).
 'In the trial of said cause in the | City Court of Montgomery plaintiff in | error filed it's written plea setting up the garnishment proceedings in the | Florida court as a har to said suit.
 'On said trial the recorc in the Flor | ida case duly authenticated according to the Act of Congress. was given in | evidence, and was the only evidence introduced by plaintiff In error.
 "rhe case was tried unon an agreed l statement of facts. in which it was ad- r1itted that the proceedings in the Flor | ida court were strictly in accordance with the statute laws of the State or Florida and authenticated according to law: that the statutes of the State of Florida set forth in the pleas of plain tiff in error are true and correct ror- les of said statutes. duly enacted in accordance with the laws of Florida. | and properly authenticated
 Prom the iudsment of the City
 
 F. E. Deer the plaintiff In error ap- pealed to the Supreme Court of Ala ban7a where said iudHment was, on December 9. 1904. affirmed.
 "From that iudement this writ of err TOT was prayed for and granted and the Honorable Thomas N Mcclellan, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. in granting said writ of err TOT signed Q certificate which was made a part of the record. certifying. Among other things. that the plaintiff in error relied upon for defense, and offered in evidence in said cause, duly authenticated transcript of the record and proceedings up to and including a final judgment against and satisfaction thereof. by the said Louisville & Nash vile Railroad Company, in said Justice Court of Washington county State of Florida: that no other defense was in- terposed by the said plaintiff in error; that the plaintiff in error claimed that 1t had the right to rely upon said rec ord. judicial proceedings and judgment under and by virtue of Section 1, Ar ticle ". of the Constitution of the Tinted States and the Act of Congress, entitled "An Act to prescribe the mods i'm which the public acts records and | iudIcial proceedings in each State shall 1 he authenticated so as to take effect l in every other state" approved May 1 oG 179O and that it was denied the | ripht claimed hereunder; that said | Sunreroe Court of Alabama in which | said judgment was rendered against nIaInfiff in error, is the highest court ! in which a decision in sad cause could be had In the State of Alabama.
 | asa V.Na