Baxley v. Laster

• Citation: 101 S.W. 755,82 Ark. 236
• Parties: BAXLEY v. LASTER
• Decision Date: 25 March 1907
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

101 S.W. 755

82 Ark. 236

BAXLEY v. LASTER

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 25, 1907

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jesse C. Hart, Chancellor reversed.

Decree reversed and remanded.

Carmichael Brooks & Powers, for appellant.

1. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The right is clearly conferred on plaintiffs by statute to have writs of garnishment. Kirby's Digest § 3694. See, also, Ib. § 3701. And the appellee had the privilege to file a schedule and claim his exemptions. Ib. §§ 3904, 3905. A party can not be held liable for doing what he has a legal right to do, where the act is done in the manner provided by law. Hale on Torts, 86; 52 Ark. 101.

2. Appellee has a full, complete and adequate remedy at law. Ubi supra; Bankruptcy Act, § 4. If appellee suffered any injury, it was in the nature of damages, which could be recovered at law; but, the remedy pointed out by statute for the claim of exemptions appears to be his only remedy, and is exclusive. 49 Ark. 114; Ib. 137; 45 Ark. 400; 63 Ark. 542; 65 Ark. 215; 47 Ark. 403; 76 Ark. 575; 70 Ark. 71; 52 Ark. 549. If this is true, the chancery court was without jurisdiction. Hale on Torts, 88; 36 Ark. 481. The plaintiff has not stated facts sufficient to entitle him to the writ of injunction. High on Ex. Legal Rem. § 617; Id. § 6.

W. H Pemberton, for appellee.

The remedy afforded at law was, under the circumstances of this case, utterly inadequate to protect the appellee from the iniquitous persecution to which he was subjected by reason of the issuance of numerous writs of garnishment, with only short intervals of time intervening. Surely, the chancery court had jurisdiction to prevent what was in effect a multiplicity of suits, and to protect him from the harassment and expense caused by the appellant's course in having an unreasonable number of writs issued. 61 L. R. A. 319-323; 41 N.W. 452; Id. 796; 4 Neb. 149; 5 Neb. 161; 8 Neb. 21; 48 N.W. 468; 62 N.W. 865.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

A. J. Laster brought suit against W. D. Baxley and others, to enjoin them from prosecuting against him certain proceedings by garnishment. The defendants have substantially set out the allegations of his complaint as follows:

"The complaint states that the appellee is a resident of the State of Arkansas, a married man, and the head of a family, and that he was working for Leon Dreyfus; that W. B. Baxley had obtained a judgment against him for the sum of $ 84.70 and costs, and that the said Baxley on the 22d day of March, 1905, procured a garnishment on Leon Dreyfus; that said Dreyfus answered that he did not owe anything to the appellee, and the garnishee was discharged. That on the 11th day of April, 1905, said Baxley procured another garnishment against the said Leon Dreyfus, and that the appellee, in order to have his wages released, was compelled to schedule; that he did schedule, and the said Dreyfus was discharged, and the appellee's wages released, but that the prosecution of said writ was vexatious and annoying to the appellee. That on the 26th day of May, 1905, the said Baxley caused another writ of garnishment to be issued against Leon Dreyfus returnable on the 3rd day of June, 1905, which last date was subsequent to the filing of the complaint herein, which was on the 30th day of May, 1905. Complaint then alleges that appellee is a married man, the head of a family of six children, the eldest being a daughter about 21 years of age, and the youngest being a daughter of about 9 years of age, and that the appellee provides and takes care of all of said six children and their mother; that all the property he owns, including the debt due him from Leon Dreyfus, does not exceed in value the sum of $ 237; that the only purpose and object of the said appellee in issuing said writs of garnishment was to annoy, vex and harass appellee, and to tie up his wages, which are his only means of support, to cause him to lose time and incur expenses in attending court, in issuing notices and filing schedules and claims of exempt property; that appellants knew, at the time of issuing said garnishment, that appellee's wages were, under the law, exempt from legal process; that he was put to the expense of $ 45 for legal services, which he has not been able to pay, and court costs, and that he ought to be relieved of such persecution. He prayed that all the appellants be enjoined and restrained from further garnishment, and that, upon a final hearing, the injunction be made permanent, and asked for damages in the sum of $ 100, and for costs, and for all other and further relief."

"The appellants filed the following demurrer to the complaint:

"1. Because the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

"2. Because the plaintiff has a full, complete and adequate remedy at law.

"3. Because this court has not the power to hear and determine this cause, and is therefore without jurisdiction.

"4. Because the complaint does not state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to the relief sought."

"The court, after a full hearing, overruled the demurrer, and, the appellants having signified their intention of standing on the demurrer and refusing to plead further, the court perpetually enjoined and restrained the further prosecution of the garnishment suits mentioned and described in the complaint herein, and now pending in the court of A. H. Stebbins, and further ordered and adjudged that the said appellants, each and all of them, their agents, be perpetually enjoined and restrained from the institution and prosecution of other and further garnishment suits against the said appellee, A. J. Laster, upon said judgment, in the court of A. H. Stebbins, until such time as this court, upon proper showing made to it, shall permit the institution and prosecution of such other and further suits, and that the appellant pay all costs for which execution might issue in form, as upon a judgment at law, and the appellants prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment and decree herein, which was granted."

The statutes of this State provide as follows:

Section 3694 of Kirby's Digest, under the law of garnishment is as follows: "In all cases where any plaintiff may begin an action in any court of record, or before any justice of the peace, or may have obtained a judgment before any of such courts, and such plaintiff shall have reason to believe that any other person is indebted to the defendant, or has in his hands or possession goods and chattels, moneys, credits, and effects belonging to such defendant, such plaintiff may sue out a writ of garnishment, setting forth such claim, demand or judgment, and commanding the officer charged with the execution thereof to summon the person therein named, as garnishee, to appear at the return day of such writ and answer what goods, chattels, moneys, credits and effects he may have in his hands or possession belonging to such defendant, to satisfy said judgment, and answer such further interrogatories as may be exhibited against him; provided, if the garnishment be issued before the judgment, the plaintiff shall give bond," etc.

Section 3701 provides: "If the issue be found for the garnishee, he shall be discharged without further proceedings; but if the issue be found for the plaintiff, judgment shall be entered for the amount found due from the garnishee to the defendant in the original judgment, or so much thereof as will be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's judgment, together with costs."

Section 3904 of Kirby's Digest provides: "The personal property of any resident of this State, who is married or the head of a family, in specific articles to be selected by such resident, not exceeding in value the sum of $ 500, in addition to his or her wearing apparel, and that of his or her family, shall be exempt from seizure on attachment or sale on execution or other process from any court, on debt by contract."

And section 3905 of Kirby's Digest provides: "The time wages of all laborers and mechanics, not exceeding their wages for 60 days, shall hereafter be exempt from seizure by...