Case Name: The Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. J. W. Sharitt
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1890-01
Citations: 43 Kan. 375
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. J. W. Sharitt.
Judges: Horton, C. J., and Johnston, J., concurring.
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 375–387

Head Matter:
The Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. J. W. Sharitt.
Eailway Employe — Action for Wages Garnishment in Another State —No Defense. Where an employé and resident of this state performs labor in this state for a railway company, a corporation of another state, but also doing business in this state, and the wages of such employé are exempt in this as well as in the other state, held, in an action by the employé to recover such wages in this state, the faot that the corporation has been garnished in such other state by a creditor of such employé before the bringing of this action in this . state and service of summons obtained upon the employé only by publication, is no defense to such action.
Error from EranJclin District Court.
J. W. Sharitt brought this action on the 27th day of July, 1887, against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, to recover wages due him. The action was brought before a justice of the peace in Franklin county, and judgment was rendered against the defendant. An appeal was taken to the district court, which made findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows:
“1. Plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant at Council Grove, Kansas, during the month of June, 1887, performing manual labor in and about coupling cars and making up trains, and the like, and was styled a ‘yard master.’
“ 2. As such laborer he earned and became and was entitled to receive from the defendant for such month’s services the sum of $79 — of which sum $75 has not been paid.
“3. Plaintiff' is a citizen, resident and householder of the. state, and has been for more than two years last past. During said month of June, 1887, and ever since, the defendant had a family, to wit, a wife and three children, supported by his labor, and his said earnings were necessary for the support of said family.
“4. While the action was pending before the justice, it appeared that certain garnishee proceedings were pending in Morris county, Kansas, whereby it was sought to subject said wages to the claim of a certain party there, and it was then agreed between the attorneys for the respective parties in this case that the suit here should be continued ten days, and that if in the meantime said garnishee proceedings were dismissed, the defendant would pay plaintiff’s claim or submit to judgment thereon if plaintiff would pay costs; accordingly, at the expiration of said ten days said proceedings having been dismissed, the justice entered judgment accordingly. On the 13th day of July, 1887, at St. Louis, Mo., the defendant company was garnished by and before a justice of the peace of that state, at the suit of W. P. Stewart, a resident of Missouri, against said J. W. Sharitt, and ordered to answer therein, in which it did on July 28, 1887; and the company was on September 29,1887, ordered to pay into that court the amount so due the plaintiff. The plaintiff Sharitt, defendant in that suit, was not served in said action otherwise than by publication. From the order so requiring said company to pay said moneys, the said company appealed to the circuit court of St. Louis county, Missouri, which said action is now pending and undetermined. Neither party nor their attorneys had notice or knowledge of these proceedings in St. Louis when the agreement referred to in the fourth finding was made.
“I conclude as matter of law that said personal earnings were and are exempt from the payment of plaintiff’s debts, and that he is entitled to recover the same in this action, and judgment will be rendered accordingly.”
Judgment thereon was rendered for the plaintiff at the October term, 1887. Defendant brings the case here.
John W. Deford, and Waggener, Martin & Orr, for plaintiff in error.
Enoch Harpole, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Clogston, C.:
It is not contended that the claim sued on is not exempt under the exemption laws of this state, but it is contended that because the garnishment proceedings were commenced in Missouri, and the court of that state obtained jurisdiction of the subject-matter before this suit was brought in Kansas, for that reason the defendant company became liable under its answer in Missouri under said proceedings, and should not again be held liable in this state in this action. The plaintiff in error recognizes the rule laid down by this court, that if the garnishment proceedings had been commenced in this state, no question could have been raised; and also recognizes the rule adopted in this state that the garnishee has the same right in his answer to raise all the questions that the debtor himself might raise, and plead the exemption law as completely as the debtor might plead it. But plaintiff in error says no such rule exists in Missouri; that under the decisions of that state it is precluded from asserting this right, and therefore if it is compelled to pay this judgment, it will again have to pay the claim under its answer in Missouri. This seems to present a hardship; but as the claim is exempt under the laws of this state, and presumably exempt under the laws of Missouri — for it is presumed, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that the laws of Missouri are the same as the statutes of this state —therefore, if this claim is exempt under both the laws of Missouri and of Kansas, it would be unjust to the defendant in error if by reason of some construction of the statute of Missouri he should be prevented from securing the benefit of the exemption. It has been held in this state that the garnishee may plead the exemption laws and be protected thereby as completely as-the debtor would be. (Mull v. Jones, 33 Kas. 112.) This seems to be the well-recognized doctrine elsewhere; and, while there is some conflict in the authorities on this subject, the great weight of authority is with our court.
We see no reason why an exception should be made in this case, to a rule so well established. Under the rule laid down in Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Maltby, 34 Kas. 131, and K. C. & J. C. Rld. Co. v. Gough, 35 id. 1, this judgment must be affirmed. (See also, Drake v. L. S. & M. S. Rly. Co., 69 Mich. 168; 37 N. W. Rep. 70.) Under those decisions, this claim would be exempt to the plaintiff below had he resided either in the state of Missouri, or, as he does, in Kansas, and such exemption ought to be a good defense for the defendant company in Missouri.
It is therefore recommended that the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
Horton, C. J., and Johnston, J., concurring.