Commonwealth ex rel. Deutsch v. Deutsch
| Decision Date | 22 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | 46 |
| Citation | 31 A.2d 526,347 Pa. 66 |
| Parties | Commonwealth ex rel. Deutsch, Appellant, v. Deutsch |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
March 26, 1943, Submitted
Appeal, No. 46, March T., 1943, from order of C.P. Cambria Co., June T., 1941, No. 33, in case of Commonwealth ex rel Freda Deutsch v. Jacob Deutsch. Order reversed.
Attachment execution issued upon judgment obtained on order for support of wife.
Rule to quash writ and dissolve attachment made absolute, before McCANN, P.J., McKENRICK and GRIFFITH, JJ., opinion by McKENRICK, J. Relator appealed.
The order quashing the writ and dissolving the attachment is reversed with a procedendo.
B. A Sciotto, for appellant.
Spence Custer & Saylor, for appellee.
Before MAXEY, C.J.; DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, PARKER and STEARNE, JJ.
The question is whether a wife who has obtained a support order upon her husband may attach his wages.
The order of support in the present case was originally made in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Cambria County, and was certified to the Court of Common Pleas of that county pursuant to the Act of May 8, 1901, P.L. 143, and there entered as a judgment. Relatrix, Freda Deutsch, caused an attachment execution to be issued on this judgment attaching the wages of her husband, Jacob Deutsch, in the hands of his employer, the Bethlehem Steel Company. The court made absolute a rule of defendant to quash the writ and dissolve the attachment.
The Act of April 15, 1845, P.L. 459, section 5, provides that the wages of any laborers, or the salary of any person in public or private employment, shall not be liable to attachment in the hands of the employer. But the Act of April 15, 1913, P.L. 72, empowers a court of quarter sessions making an order for support to enforce it by the issuance of "the appropriate writ of execution against any property, real or personal, belonging to the defendant," and a "writ of attachment execution against any money or property to which he may be in any way entitled, whether under what is known as a spendthrift trust or otherwise." [1] This same authorization was extended by the Act of May 10, 1921, P.L. 434, to "any court of competent jurisdiction" which "has made an order or entered a decree or judgment against any husband requiring him to pay any sum or sums for the support of his wife or children or both."
Whether, in construing the Act of 1921, we are guided by its literal phraseology, or whether we seek otherwise to ascertain the intention of the legislature in enacting it, our conclusion is the same, namely, that it overrides the Act of 1845 in the case of orders or judgments for the support of deserted and neglected wives. Its language is most comprehensive, since it authorizes the issuance of a writ of execution against any property belonging to the defendant and a writ of attachment execution against any money or property to which he may be in any way entitled. While its primary object may have been to make the husband's interest in a spendthrift trust available for the support of the wife, the broadness of its phrasing indicates the larger purpose of making all the property and assets of the husband, of whatever kind or nature, liable in execution or attachment execution for the payment of the order made on him for support. Such an intention is further indicated by a provision in the act that he shall not be entitled even to the benefits of any exemption law.
It is argued that the exemption of wages from attachment was not intended merely to confer a personal privilege upon laborers but was enacted for the protection of their employers as well (Little v. Balliette, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 411, 413). This is true, [2] but...
To continue reading
Request your trial