Case Name: BURNS et al. v. MAURER
Court: County Court of New York, Erie County
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-05
Citations: 131 N.Y.S. 344
Docket Number: 
Parties: BURNS et al. v. MAURER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 131
Pages: 344–345

Head Matter:
(72 Misc. Rep. 481.)
BURNS et al. v. MAURER.
(Erie County Court.
May, 1911.)
1. Exemptions (§ 48*)—Earnings of Judgment Debtor.
Where an employé in a hotel receives as compensation $45 per month and his board, the board is part of the earnings, within Code Civ. Proc." § 1391, providing that, where the earnings of a judgment debtor amount to $12 or more per week, a judgment shall be a lien thereon to an amount not exceeding 10 per cent, thereof, so that an order directing the debtor's employer to pay to the sheriff one-twelfth of his earnings is valid.
[Ed. Note.-—For other cases, see Exemptions, Cent. Dig. §§ 64, 72; Dec. Dig. § 48. ]
2. Exemptions (§ 48*)—“Earnings.”
The word “earnings” embraces a larger class of credits than the term “wages.” It covers all compensation for services and may even include expenditures, as well as labor; and where an employé receives fixed wages and board, the board is a portion of his earnings.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Exemptions, Cent. Dig. §§ 64r-72; Dec. Dig. §, 48.*
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 3, pp. 2302-2304; vol. 8, p. 7646.]
Action by Louise M. Burns and another against Charles J. Maurer. Judgment for plaintiffs. On motion by defendant to set aside an order directing his employer to pay to the sheriff one-twelfth of his earnings, under Code Civ. Proc. § Í391. Motion denied.
Calvin S. Grosser, for plaintiffs.
William C. Crombie and Reginald F. Penton, for defendant.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
TAYLOR, J.
This court made a garnishee order, directing the employer of this defendant to pay to the sheriff of this county one-twelfth of defendant's earnings. The papers presented thereupon showed that the defendant was working under an arrangement whereby he received $45 in cash per month and his board, and that said board was worth at least $3.50 per week. The defendant judgment debtor moves to set the order aside, upon the ground that, under section 1391 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this defendant is not subject to garnishment, for the reason that the value of his board is not within the intendment of said section.
Section 1391 reads, in part, as follows:
"Where any wages, debts, earnings, salary, income from trust funds or profits are or shall thereafter become due and owing to him (the judgment debtor), to the amount of twelve dollars or more per week."
The plaintiff, in construing this section, is entitled to the benefit of the most comprehensive word therein touching upon the judgment debtor's receipts. As far as the situation at bar is concerned I believe "earnings" to be that word. It has been held in Jenks v. Dyer, 102 Mass. 235, and Somers v. Keliher, 115 Mass. 165, that the word "earnings" embraces a larger class of credits than the term "wages"; that it covers all compensation for services, and may even include expenditures as well as labor. It is urged by the defendant that it is the custom of hotels to pay the board of their employés; that it is a mere incident, intended for their and their employer's convenience; -and that the wages of this defendant would be as great whether or not he received board. This argument does not impress me.' I cannot bring myself to the conclusion that the defendant's board could have been contemplated as a mere gratuity. It seems clear to me that this is a part of his "earnings" under section 1391.
And since, however drastic this remedy may appear to any person, and however great a hardship it may work in this particular case, I am compelled to interpret this legislation according to the intent of the lawmakers as I gather it from reading the statute, the defendant's motion is denied, but without costs.
Motion denied.