Lady Ensley Furnace Co. v. Rogan

• Decision Date: 24 May 1892
• Citation: 11 So. 188,95 Ala. 594
• Parties: LADY ENSLEY FURNACE CO. v. ROGAN ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

11 So. 188

95 Ala. 594

LADY ENSLEY FURNACE CO. v. ROGAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 24, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Colbert county; HENRY C. SPEAKE, Judge.

Action by Rogan & Co. against Jarus Collins. A writ of garnishment was issued and served on the Lady Ensley Furnace Company citing it to answer on oath what they were "indebted to said Collins at the time of the service of the writ of garnishment, or at the time of the making their answer, and whether they will not be indebted in future to him by a contract then existing, and whether they have not in their possession or under their control personal or real property or things in action belonging to the defendant." On September 19, 1889, plaintiffs recovered a judgment against Collins, and also a judgment nisi against the garnishee. On March 3, 1890, the garnishee filed its answer in writing, admitting an indebtedness to defendant at that date in the sum of $150. On February 22, 1890, Collins filed his claim of exemptions, selecting, among other things, the debt of $150 due him from the garnishee as exempt to him from the said garnishment. At the spring term, 1891, of the said court, plaintiffs obtained an order against the garnishee requiring it to appear at the next term of the court and answer orally. On September 30, 1891, Collins filed in the court his declarations and claims of exemptions, claiming among other things, the amount of wages earned by him, and paid him by the garnishee, from the date of the service of the garnishment up to that time. On the 1st of October, 1891 the garnishee, by its agent, answered orally in open court as to its indebtedness to defendant, and disclosed that it had paid defendant, since the service of the garnishment, the sum of $1,847.50, under a contract of employment existing between it and defendant; "that no part of said money had been paid to the defendant Collins in advance for his services that the services had been rendered by the defendant, and the monthly payments had become due and payable, before said money, or any part of it, was paid by the garnishee to the defendant." The garnishee then moved the court to discharge it on its answer; but the court overruled this motion, and rendered judgment against the garnishee, from which it appeals. Affirmed.

James Jackson, for appellant.

J. B. Moore, for appellees.

WALKER J.

The writ of garnishment in this case required the garnishee to answer what it was indebted to the defendant at the time of the service of the writ, or at the time of making its answer and whether it would be indebted in future to him by a contract then existing. The service of the garnishment created a lien in favor of the plaintiffs upon any debt or the garnishee to the defendant which might be disclosed by the answer, or on a contest thereof. Code, § 2957. The citation did not in terms require an answer as to the time intervening the time of serving the garnishment and making the answer, and in this respect it did not follow the language of the statute. Code, § 2946. Its manifest purport, however, was to require the garnishee to answer as to any indebtedness which was existing at the time the writ was served, or which may have accrued when the answer was made, or which might become due in the future under a contract then existing. A writ of garnishment is mere process, and it serves its purpose when it brings the garnishee before the court. Curry v. Woodward, 50 Ala. 258. Any indebtedness of the garnishee to the defendant, which accrued between the dates of the service and of the answer, was fairly within the scope of the questions propounded, and a payment of such debt by the garnishee before making his answer cannot be permitted...