Boylan v. Hines

• Decision Date: 12 November 1907
• Citation: 62 W.Va. 486,59 S.E. 503
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: BOYLAN. v. HINES.

59 S.E. 503

62 W.Va. 486

BOYLAN.

v.HINES.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Nov. 12. 1907.

Garnishment — Persons Subject — Special Commissioners.

Special commissioners, who have in their hands an amount arising out of a chancery cause belonging to a judgment debtor, and which amount by decree in such cause has been directed to be paid over to the said owner, are liable to garnishment thereof.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 24, Garnishment, § 115.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Circuit Court, Mineral County.

Action by Thomas Boylan against John Hines. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Wm. MacDonald, for plaintiff in error.

Taylor Morrison, for defendant in error.

ROBINSON, J. A single question is involved here, and presented by the record squarely. It is this: Are special commissioners in a chancery cause, who have in their hands money arising out of said cause belonging to a judgment debtor, and the amount of which by decree therein has been directed to be paid to the said owner, liable as garnishees of such judgment debtor upon proper suggestion proceedings in the premises? Thomas Boylan had judgment before a justice of the peace of Mineral county against John Hines on the 11th day of February, 1907, for the sum of $231, with interest thereon until paid, and the costs, a transcript of which judgment was filed in the clerk's office of the circuit court of said county, pursuant to section 118 of chapter 50 of the Code of 1899 [Code 1906, § 2069], and execution was there issued. Suggestion proceedings thereupon were regularly instituted in the circuit court of said county, and Taylor Morrison, F. C. Reynolds, and William MacDonald, special commissioners in the chancery cause of Floyd Knight, administrator of James W. Tasker, deceased, against Sarah J. Tasker and others, were made garnishees. By decree in such chancery cause, in said circuit court, the said Hines was entitled to the sum of $175, in the hands of said special commissioners, and the same had been thereby directed to be paid him by them. This amount was admitted by said special commissioners, garnishees, to belong to him, and it was further admitted by them that they "were authorized and directed by said decree to pay out said money." Hines moved the court to quash the suggestion process upon the ground, as stated in the record, that special commissioners were not liable to such process. This motion was sustained, the suggestion quashed, and judgment given Hines against the plaintiff therein for costs. From this action of the circuit court, the plaintiff, Boylan, obtained this writ of error.

It is insisted that money so in the hands of special commissioners is in the custody of the law, and therefore not liable to be suggested. The rule that property in the custody of the law cannot be made the subject of attachment or garnishmentis practically universal. Brewer v. Hutton, 45 W.Va. 106, 30 S. E. 81, 72 Am. St. Rep. 804. "Any person deriving his authority to receive andhold money or property from the law, and who is obliged to apply such money or property according to the rules of law, cannot be held liable as a garnishee for such money or property while it is held by him under such authority. Consequently a public officer of any name or nature is beyond the reach of process of garnishment while he holds the funds or property in his official and public capacity, and is accountable to the public or an individual merely as an officer." Shinn on Attachment and Garnishment, § 505. The reason for such rule is well founded and clearly known. The due and orderly administration of the law is not to be interfered with by such process. But "the reason of the law is the life of the law, " and, when the reason for a rule ceases, so does the rule. Does an officer hold money in his official capacity after he has been...