Court Opinion

ID: 9662114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:59:44.508263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:36.940165
License: Public Domain

SICKEL, J.
(dissenting). The mineral deed involved in this action represents an interest in the land in the nature of an “incorporeal hereditament”. 58 C.J.S., Mines and Minerals, § 223. The deed grants to defendant the right to enter upon the land for exploration, development and the removal of minerals. The garnishee is the owner of the land and in possession and therefore the oil rights of defendant are under his control. The deed is an interest of substantial value which may be assigned or sold on execution to satisfy a liability owing by defendant to plaintiff.
The majority opinion concedes that the garnishment statute provides “a method of equitable levy on interests in real property by the mere service of process on a person who has no other relation to the defendant or to the interest of defendant in real property, than that of possession of the land in which the interest exists”, but concludes that such was not the intention of the legislature as contended by plaintiff. A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the court shall, by all aids available, ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the legislature as expressed in the statute. Where the language of the statute is plain and unambigious there is no occasion for construction, and the statute must be given .effect according to its plain and obvious meaning. 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 322. Courts must assume *369that the plain language of the statute expresses the intention of the legislature.
The majority opinion also concludes that a literal interpretation of the statute is unreasonable because it creates a new liability, referring of course to the duties imposed upon the garnishee in possession and control of property belonging to defendant. All garnishment statutes create new (statutory) liabilities. In this case the garnishee is in possession of the land covered by the deed and in control of the mineral rights represented by the deed. The garnishment statute imposes upon the garnishee the duty of protecting the rights of the grantee (defendant) against exploitation by defendant or anyone else during the pendency of this action, so that those rights may be appropriated to the satisfaction of any judgment which may be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Such duties are common to all garnishment statutes.
For the reasons stated it is my opinion that the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed.