Case Name: FREDERICK J. WORTENDYKE, RESPONDENT, v. ELMER BLAUVELT, ADMINISTRATOR, &c., ET AL., APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1917-10-12
Citations: 91 N.J.L. 353
Docket Number: 
Parties: FREDERICK J. WORTENDYKE, RESPONDENT, v. ELMER BLAUVELT, ADMINISTRATOR, &c., ET AL., APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
FREDERICK J. WORTENDYKE, RESPONDENT, v. ELMER BLAUVELT, ADMINISTRATOR, &c., ET AL., APPELLANTS.
Argued June 27, 1917
Decided October 12, 1917.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following memorandum was filed by Mr. Justice Parker:
“The only question in this case is whether the act of 1915, page 470, operates as a repealer of previous legislation whereby incomes of less than $18 per week could be reached under execution. The return in supplementary proceedings in this case showed an income of $70 per month and prosecutor claims that the Circuit Court had no right to order the appropriation of any part of it to the judgment.
“I think the point is well taken. The argument against it is that while the act cited expressly repeals all inconsistent acts, it does not repeal them so far as relates to appropriation of incomes less than $18, because itself expressly limited to incomes of that amount or over. I think, however, it was intended to provide not only a different method of reaching incomes and wages, &c., hut also to limit attack on incomes to those of the designated amount. Legislation previously in force whereby incomes of lesser amount could be reached, is to my mind plainly inconsistent with it, 'and, to the extent of such inconsistency, repealed. This was assumed in Russell v. Mechanics Realty Co., 88 N. J. L. 532. I think the income in question was exempt from attack, and the order is therefore set aside.”
For the appellants, Horton & Tilt.
For the respondent, Lewis R. Harris.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 12.
For reversal — Hone.