The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1909-02-13
COURTS ARE
WIT HOU I
POWER
JUSTICE COURTS HAVE BEEN
ACTING WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
They Are Not Allowed to Enter Judg-
ments on Writs OF Garnishment
important Decision.

According to recent decision by
Judges Lewis and Armstrong, In the
Third district court the justice OF the
peace courts of the state of Utah have
been violating the state laws and over
stepping their jurisdiction by causing
judgments to be entered upon which
.levies were made and money paid on
writs Of garnishment.
Now pending in the court of Justice
of the Peace Stanley A. Hanks Is a
case which will no doubt bring to
light the illegal actions on the part OF
the justices and which Will undoubted-
ly cause the present Legislature to en-
act law fully covering the matter.
In fact. there is bill now before
the senate dealing with the matter.
Some timc ago A. Madison & Sons
company Of Murray brought All ac-
tion against Mrs. Eliza Thomas OF
Murray, In the Justice court OF that
place to recover S2555 Judgment
was entered IN favor OF the plaintiff
for the sum asked. The plaintiffs then
served an execution and writ OF gar
nishment on the Zion Savings Bank
and Trust company OF this city. The
bank answered the writ of garnish-
mept. showing that 1t held on deposit
in the name of Mrs. Eliza Thomas
$255.55. Judgment was then entered
against the bank, or garnishee, for the
amount stated in the answer TO the
writ of garnishment.
An execution was then issued by
the Murray court and given to the
sheriff. who served 1t on the bank, and
the money was turned over to the
sheriff to be given to the plaintiff in
the case, A. Madison & Sons company.
After this procedure, Mrs. Thomas
employed attorneys and filed in JUS
tice Hanks court suit against the
lions Savings and Trust company
alleging that 1t had no right to turn
over the money left in its trust on
writ OF garnishment issued from JUS
tice court, according to the laws of
the state, which read that no court
other than a court of record has jurls-
diction to caused to be levied nor 1ur-
isdiction to enter judgment as was
done in this case.
Judge Lewis recently held that gar
nishment upon an execution cannot
issue out OF a Judgment In a justice OF
the peace court In a Justice court
garnishment can only Issue upon an
attachment before judgment, he held
This law Is plainly set forth in Sec
tions 5000 and 3112 of the Revised
Statutes.
According to the law, as stated In
those two sections. only court OF rec
ord may Issue a writ of garnishment
on an execution. Justice courts, or
the city court. are not courts of rec
ord. thus IL is only the higher courts
that have such jurisdiction.
According to the law, any corpora
ton or business Arm which pays out
money on the order OF justice court
may be held answerable by the part
les affected.
For a number of years Justice
courts have been causing collections
on writs Of garnishment based on exc
cutIons. and it is only within a few
weeks that this procedure has been
shown to be contrary to law
The discovery that justices Of the
peace have been exceeding their jur-
isdiction has caused considerable
comment among attorneys, and viii
come rs surprise TO many concerns
which have paid money on garnish-
ments issued by Justice courts, as they
hae done so without legal right, and
at the risk OF being sued for the
amount by the parties whom the gar
nishments might affect.