American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Daneman

• Decision Date: 11 April 1928
• Docket Number: 20703
• Parties: The American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Daneman Et Al., D.B.A. Spencer Jewelry Co.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

160 N.E. 897

118 Ohio St. 331

The American Laundry Machinery Co. v. Daneman Et Al., D.B.A. Spencer Jewelry Co.

No. 20703

Supreme Court of Ohio

April 11, 1928

Assignment of wages - Fifty per cent. may be transferred without employer's acceptance - Section 6846-11, General Code (110 0. L.,209).

Mr Joseph R. Rohrer, Messrs. Gatch, McLaughlin & Gatch, and Mr Robert P. Kleinmann, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. H Henry Sundermann, for defendants in error.

BY THE COURT.

Edward Murphy, on July 19, 1924, being then an employee of the American Laundry Machinery Company, bought on credit from the Spencer Jewelry Company a diamond ring at a price of $137.83. He on that date executed an instrument whereby he assigned to the Spencer Jewelry Company 50 per cent. of the wages due, or which might thereafter within the period of 36 weeks from said date, or until his indebtedness to the Spencer Jewelry Company was paid, become due, from the American Laundry Machinery Company. Said instrument purported to authorize and direct said American Laundry Machinery Company, or any other company, firm, or corporation who might be his employer, upon such assignment or copy thereof being filed with them, to pay to the Spencer Jewelry Company or order 50 per cent. of the wages or salary due or to become due according to said assignment until the amount stated should be fully paid.

Murphy made three payments of $8 each on said indebtedness. The jewelry company, on December 1, 1924, filed with the laundry machinery company said assignment, but the latter company refused to withhold any part of the wages of Murphy or pay the same to the jewelry company. Murphy left the ring on the counter of the jewelry company, but they refused to accept the same in satisfaction of their claim; but held it as bailee.

Murphy was employed by the laundry machinery company for a period greater than 36 weeks from the date of the assignment, and 50 per cent. of his wages from December 1, 1924, to the expiration of the 36 weeks amounted to more than $113.83.

His action was brought by the jewelry company against the laundry machinery company to recover from the latter the balance due the former upon its claim against Murphy, $113.83.

"Assignment of wages to be earned in the future under an existing employment is valid." Rodijkeit v. Andrews, 74 Ohio St. 104, 77 N. E., 747, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 564, 6 Ann.Cas. 761.

At the time of the rendition of that...