Davidson v. F. H. Logeman Chair Co.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1897 |
| Citation | 41 S.W. 824 |
| Parties | DAVIDSON et al. v. F. H. LOGEMAN CHAIR CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Jefferson county; Stephen P. West, Judge.
Suit by F. H. Logeman Chair Company against Leon Levy and W. S. Davidson as garnishee. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant and garnishee appeal. Affirmed.
Greer & Greer, for appellants. O'Brien, Bordages & O'Brien, for appellee.
Appellee sued Leon Levy for a debt of $251.40, and at the same time applied for and obtained a writ of garnishment against W. S. Davidson. Both the garnishee and Levy answered, admitting that the garnishee, as trustee for Charles Levy, had in his hands the sum of $341.59 belonging to Leon Levy, but alleged that the money was for current wages due by Charles Levy to Leon Levy for current services. Judgment was rendered by the court subjecting $241.59 of the money in the hands of Davidson to the demand of appellee. The findings of fact show that Leon Levy was a clerk in the employ of Charles Levy from August 30, 1893, until October 5, 1895, when the employer executed a deed of trust to Davidson, as trustee, on his stock of goods. The clerk was receiving the sum of $75 per month, and his wages for the time of his employment amounted to $1,875, of which he had drawn out the sum of $778.34, leaving a balance due him of $1,094. The court further found that the clerk could have collected all of his wages except the sum of $75 due for September, 1895. Twenty-five dollars were allowed the garnishee for attorney's fees.
Leon Levy voluntarily left his wages, when due, in the hands of his employer, and when he did so the amount was no longer current wages, but was in the same position as though he had drawn the amount and deposited it with a banker. The exemption was destroyed by the money being allowed to remain in the hands of the employer. The constitution and statute provide that "no current wages for personal services shall ever be subject to garnishment." Const. art. 16, § 28; Rev. St. 1895, art. 252. Whenever the wages become subject to the control of the employé, and he voluntarily leaves them with his employer, or collects and deposits them with some one else, he has robbed them of their character as current wages, and the protection extended to them by constitution and statute is lost. A case directly in point has been considered by the commission of appeals, and their opinion adopted by the supreme court. Bell v. Live-Stock Co., 11 S. W....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Ico, Inc.
... ... `salary,' the controlling issue being whether it is compensation for personal service." Davidson Texas, Inc. v. Garcia, 664 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Tex.App.-Austin 1984, no writ). This exception should ... Davidson v. F.H. Logeman Chair Co., 41 S.W. 824, 825 (Tex. Civ.App.1897, no writ); see also Sloan v. Douglass, 713 S.W.2d ... ...
-
Sloan v. Douglass
...1923, no writ), a review of exemption cases (see Bell v. Indian Live-Stock Co., 11 S.W. 344 (Tex.1889) and Davidson v. F.H. Logeman Chair Co., 41 S.W. 824, 825 (Tex.Civ.App.1897)), stated that the exemption continues only until: (1) the wages are due and in the possession of the debtor; or ......
-
Gaddy v. First Nat. Bank
...in the possession of the employer, they were not exempt, because they ceased to be "current wages." (2) Davidson v. F. H. Logeman Chair Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 824. In this case the chair company sued one Levy for debt, and garnisheed his employer, Davidson, who answered that he had f......
-
Sutherland v. Young
... ... In Davidson v. Logeman Chair Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 824, the employee had voluntarily left his wages ... ...