Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Freeze

• Citation: 169 Ind. 370,82 N.E. 761
• Decision Date: 26 November 1906
• Docket Number: No. 20,969.,20,969.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Parties: BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. v. FREEZE.

169 Ind. 370

82 N.E. 761

BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.

v.FREEZE.

No. 20,969.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 26, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, DeKalb County; E. A. Bratton, Judge.

Action by A. John Freeze against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. From a judgment of the circuit court for plaintiff, rendered on appeal from a judgment of a justice's court, defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions.

Calhoun, Layford & Shuan and J. E. & J. H. Rose, for appellant.

MONTGOMERY, J.

Appellee brought this action before a justice of the peace upon a demand due him for wages. He recovered a judgment, from which appellant appealed to the circuit court, wherein a second judgment was recovered. It is charged upon this appealthat the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.

An action upon account was brought by Roy W. Loucks against appellee and appellant as garnishee defendant before a justice of the peace of Cook county, Ill., and judgment rendered therein for $18.90, which judgment appellant as such garnishee was compelled to pay and did pay. In this action appellant claimed, but was denied, credit for the sum paid by it upon that judgment. The trial court first received in evidence, but subsequently struck out the transcript of proceedings before the Cook county justice. Appellant alleged as reasons for a new trial error in the assessment of the amount of recovery, the same being too large, that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, and that the court did not give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of a sister state, but, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, erroneously struck out and rejected a duly certified transcript of such proceedings and judgment. It appeared from appellee's testimony that he had resided at Garret, Ind., for 17 years, and had been in the employ of appellant continuously for about one year prior to September, 1903; that the actual amount due him from appellant as wages for the month of September, 1903, was $50.37; that he knew his wages for that month had been “stopped” in Chicago; and that on October 2, 1903, he executed a paper containing a schedule of his property to be used in any case pending there whereby his wages were attached. He testified that he wrote a letter inclosing such schedule October 23, 1903, to Pam Calhoun and Glennon, attorneys in Chicago, asking them to attend to the matter for him, and that on October 10, 1903, he wrote a letter to the Light Collection Agency, with reference to the proceedings pending against him in Chicago, from which letter introduced in evidence it appears that he had received notice that said agency had garnisheed his wages for the month of September, and claimed that he could defeat the garnishment by appeal, but would pay the amount of the debt without any costs. He further testified that in June, 1904, appellant tendered him a pay voucher for the amount of his wages less the Chicago garnishment, which he refused solely on the ground that it was not for enough money.

Appellant introduced in evidence numerous statutes of be state of Illinois with reference to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, and covering the jurisdiction and procedure in cases of attachment and garnishment, and the right of appeal from their judgments to the circuit or county court of the county in which the justice resides. Appellant also introduced a properly certified transcript of the proceedings had and judgment taken before the Cook county justice of the peace, which transcript contained all the notices, affidavits, and proceedings required by the statutes, including a copy of the verified answer filed in the case by appellant as garnishee defendant, in which answer an indebtedness of $50.60 was admitted to be owing, and it was further claimed that appellee was a resident householder of Indiana, and as such under the laws of that state was entitled to an exemption of $600 in personal property, and, further, that said sum of $50.60 was due for wages earned by appellee and payable to him outside of the state of Illinois. It was further shown by the evidence that the first suit in attachment against appellant was dismissed on April 4, 1904, and a new suit immediately brought before the same justice, of which latter suit he was notified by letter, the receipt of which he acknowledged. Judgment was rendered in the second suit on the 27th of May, 1904, for $18.90, and paid by appellant. Appellee in rebuttal introduced the following statute approved July 1, 1903: “Be it enacted by the people of the state of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: That wages earned out of this state, and payable out of this state, shall be exempt from attachment or garnishment in all cases where the cause of action arose out of this state, unless the defendant in the attachment or garnishment suit is personally served with process;...