Court Opinion

ID: 9824599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:56:49.297543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:52.426728
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is again argued, on rehearing, that the Duggar case is unsound in holding that, by the adoption of the United States Code, both Sections 544 and 601 of 46 U. S.C.A. became operative and the former was a limitation on the latter. Predicate for this argument is that Congress, in adopting the Code, imposed the provision that “nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing or amending any such law, or as enacting as new law any matter contained in the Code.” 1 U.S.C.A. p. 4.
The New York cases, cited supra, and that of United States ex rel. Boyd v. McMurtry et al., D.C., 5 F.Supp. 515, encourage such a view, and, as suggested in the opinion hereinabove, were the matter before us now as an original proposi*547tion solution of the problem would be most difficult.
This is not the case, however. We have now jurisdictions entertaining different views, with the supreme authority, the United States Supreme Court, having rendered no opinion to guide us.
This court is content to view the law as settled in this jurisdiction and, indeed, we must be content for our Supreme Court has announced the law, and: “The decisions of the supreme court shall govern the holdings and decisions of the court of appeals,” Code 1940, Title 13, Sec. 95.
The application is overruled.
Rehearing denied.
After Remandment.
As pointed out above, we seriously questioned the soundness of the holding in Duggar v. Mobile, etc., Co., supra. Nevertheless, the opinion of our Supreme Court in that case was binding upon us, and upon that authority we affirmed the judgment of the lower court in the present case.
The Supreme Court has now reversed its holding and rules (on certiorari from our court in the case at bar, 9 So.2d 23) that the decision in the Duggar case was erroneous, the effect of the conclusion being that the wages of seamen engaged in ordinary coastwise trade are not subject to garnishment, arrestment or attachment.
This last expression on the subject from our Supreme Court controls the issue. Code 1940, Title 13, § 95.
The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed and a judgment'is here rendered discharging the garnishee.
Reversed and rendered.