Bofferding v. Mengelkoch

• Decision Date: 19 March 1915
• Docket Number: Nos. 19,249-(313).,s. 19,249-(313).
• Parties: WILLIAM BOFFERDING v. ALEX MENGELKOCH.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

129 Minn. 184

WILLIAM BOFFERDING v. ALEX MENGELKOCH.¹

Nos. 19,249-(313).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 19, 1915.

Action in the district court for Hennepin county. Mengelkoch & Culhane were garnished and disclosed that they owed defendant $25 for services rendered by him at the time of the garnishee summons and within 30 days preceding the garnishment they had paid him $35 for services rendered during the preceding 30 days. Defendant's motion that the garnishees be discharged and the amount

held by them be released as exempt, on the ground that the statute providing a lesser amount of exemption as against a creditor for necessaries for defendant and his family dependent on him, was unconstitutional, was denied, Leary, J., and judgment was rendered against the garnishees for the amount held by them. From the order denying his motion and from the judgment entered pursuant to the order, defendant appealed. Reversed.

David R. Thomas, for appellant.

William Howard Anderson, for respondent.

SCHALLER, J.

It is conceded on this appeal that plaintiff supplied necessaries to defendant and his family; that plaintiff's claim was reduced to judgment; that garnishment proceedings were duly had; and that on the disclosure it appeared that $25 was due to defendant from the garnishee for wages for services rendered. It further appeared that during the 30 days next preceding the service of the garnishee process defendant had received on account of his wages the sum of $35. On this disclosure the court ordered judgment for plaintiff against the garnishee. Defendant appealed from the judgment entered.

Defendant challenges the validity of the proviso to Laws 1913, p. 524, c. 375 (G. S. 1913, § 7951, subd. 16). This act exempts from seizure or sale:

"The wages of any person, not exceeding thirty-five dollars, due for any services rendered by him for another during thirty days preceding any attachment, garnishment or the levy of any execution against him, provided, however, that if the action, in which such attachment, garnishment, or levy of execution is made, is brought to recover the price of necessaries for the use of the debtor or his family dependent upon him, and any such debtor shall have been paid wages amounting to thirty-five dollars or more earned during said thirty day period, then in any such case, such debtor shall not be entitled to any exemption under this subdivision in wages earned during said thirty day period, except the thirty-five dollars theretofore paid."

If this legislation is invalid, it is because it violates section 12, article 1, of our Constitution, which provides, among other things:

"A reasonable amount of property shall be exempt from seizure or sale for the payment of any debt or liability. The amount of such exemption shall be determined by law. Provided, however, that all property so exempted shall be liable to seizure and sale for any debts incurred to any person for work done or materials furnished in the construction, repair, or improvement of the same; and provided further, that such liability to seizure and sale shall also extend to all real property for any debt incurred to any laborer or servant for labor or service performed."

Prior to its amendment in 1888 by the addition of the above provisos, section 12, article 1, of our Constitution was construed in a number of cases, in all of which it was held that the legislature had no power to select a certain class of liabilities and to say as to them that the exemption prescribed by law in obedience to the constitutional mandate should not apply. Tuttle v. Strout, 7 Minn. 374 (465), 82 Am. Dec. 108; Cogel v. Mickow, 11 Minn. 354 (475); Coleman v. Ballandi, 22 Minn. 144; Keller v. Struck, 31 Minn. 446, 18 N. W. 280. Shortly after the decision of the two cases last cited, the above provisos were adopted. The fact that only two exceptions were made goes far towards satisfying us that there was no intention or desire to depart from the previously...