Batesville Casket Co. v. Fields
| Decision Date | 28 October 1941 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
| Parties | Batesville Casket Co. v. Fields et al. |
4. Judges; Officers. — The statute providing that salaries due state, county, or municipal employees shall be subject to attachment or garnishment does not violate constitutional provision requiring salaries of judges of circuit courts to be uniform throughout the state, nor constitutional provision that salaries of public officers shall not be changed during the term for which they are elected (Ky. Stats., sec. 1701b; Constitution, secs. 133, 235).
5. Constitutional Law. — A state Constitution is not a grant of power to the Legislature but is a limitation of its general powers, and the Legislature may pass any act not forbidden expressly or by necessary implication by the Constitution.
6. Constitutional Law. — There is no "public policy" of a state forbidding its Legislature from doing anything which its constitution does not prohibit.
7. Garnishment. — The statute providing that salaries due state, county, and municipal employees shall be subject to attachment or garnishment is applicable to constitutional as well as other employees of state and its subdivisions (Ky. Stats., sec. 1701b).
8. Constitutional Law. — The Legislature can alter public policy, theretofore declared by court to be in effect.
9. Assignments. — Where assignments, attachments, and garnishments of salaries due public officers had been held to be contrary to public policy and therefore void, the statute providing that salaries due state, county, school boards, and municipal employees shall be subject to attachment or garnishment does not change the rule that assignment by a public officer of his salary before it becomes due is contrary to public policy and void (Ky. Stats., sec. 1701b).
10. Assignments. — A defense based upon violation of rule that assignment by a public officer of his salary before it becomes due is contrary to public policy is not limited to the officer himself.
11. Attachment. — An attaching creditor has no greater right in property attached than the debtor had at the time of the attachment.
12. States. — The salary of a state officer is not due until the end of the month, and he has no right to be paid until that time.
13. Garnishment. — An attachment levied in August by judgment creditor of circuit judge did not attach the August salary, and attachment levied in September did not attach the September salary; but, since the August salary was due and unpaid when the September attachment was levied, the August salary was effectively reached by the September levy (Ky. Stats., sec. 1701b).
Appeal from Letcher Circuit Court.
W.W. Burchett for appellant.
J.J. Moore and Henry J. Scott for appellees.
Before Joseph D. Harkins, Special Judge.
Reversing.
On the 9th day of December, 1933, appellant, Batesville Casket Co., obtained judgment against appellee, R. M. Fields, in the sum of $377.40, with interest from the 8th day of August, 1928. No part of the judgment having been satisfied, on August 8, 1940, appellant caused an attachment to issue which was executed on the 10th day of August, 1940, on the duly constituted officers of the Commonwealth of Kentucky as garnishees, alleging that the state of Kentucky had in its hands the sum of $400 representing salary due appellee for the month of August, 1940, for his services to the Commonwealth as judge of the 35th judicial district of Kentucky. On the 2nd day of September, 1940, the Commonwealth answered that it had in its possession, subject to the order of the court, the sum of $400 for which check had been issued payable to R.M. Fields. It further alleged that on the 6th day of August, 1940, there was filed with the department of finance and the treasurer of the Commonwealth an assignment to the Pikeville Bank and Trust Co., of Pikeville, Kentucky, of the salary that was to become due Judge Fields for the month of August, 1940, and that the assignment had been accepted by them previous to the levy of the attachment; that previous to the levy they had been holding the salary subject to the assignment. The Pikeville Bank and Trust Co., on petition, was made party defendant and by answer alleged that on the 29th day of July, 1940, defendant, R.M. Fields, executed and delivered to it his promissory note in the sum of $400 payable 30 days after date, whereupon it paid to him the full amount of the principal thereof less $2 interest; to secure the payment of the note Fields transferred and assigned to the bank his salary as judge of the 35th judicial district of Kentucky for the month of August, 1940. It prayed it be adjudged to be entitled to receive the $400. On the 23rd of September, 1940, appellant caused an alias attachment to issue and on the 27th day of September, 1940, caused it to be executed on the duly constituted officers of the Commonwealth. The latter answered that there had been filed with it an assignment to the Pikeville Bank and Trust Co. of the salary which was to become due the defendant for the month of September, 1940, which assignment was accepted by them prior to the levy of the attachment. The bank by amendment to its answer pleaded the second assignment and prayed appropriate relief. The above facts were stipulated and the case submitted to the special judge who rendered judgment in favor of the Pikeville Bank and Trust Co. and discharged the attachments, from which judgment this appeal has been prosecuted.
It is the contention of appellant that the court erred in adjudging the bank entitled to the proceeds under the assignment, because (1) the assignment of a public officer's salary is contrary to public policy and void; (2) that the attachments were valid by reason of the provisions of Section 1701b, Kentucky Statutes, which recites:
"That salaries or sums due State, county, school boards, and municipal employees shall be subject to attachment or garnishment the same as if such salaries or sums were due from an individual. * * *"
Appellee contends (1) that the enactment of Section 1701b of the Statutes is in contravention...
To continue reading
Request your trial