Fielder v. Jessup

• Decision Date: 04 January 1887
• Citation: 24 Mo.App. 91
• Parties: WILLIAM FIELDER, ASSIGNEE, Appellant, v. ELIJAH JESSUP ET AL., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

24 Mo.App. 91

WILLIAM FIELDER, ASSIGNEE, Appellant,

v.ELIJAH JESSUP ET AL., Respondents.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Jan. 4, 1887.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, GEORGE W. LUBKE, Judge.

Affirmed.

J. J. RAFTER and J. M. HOLMES, for the appellant.

TAYLOR & POLLARD, for the respondents.

ROMBAUER, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a proceeding of garnishment upon attachment, and was tried in the circuit court to which the cause had been appealed by the garnishee, upon the following agreed statement of facts:

“For the purpose of dispensing with all oral testimony touching the liability of the St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company, as garnishee, in the above entitled cause, it is agreed by and between the parties that the following are the facts bearing upon the case:

1. It is admitted as true that the plaintiff, William Fielder, and his assignees, were and now are nonresidents of the state of Missouri and residents of the state of Illinois; that the defendant, Elijah Jessup, is now and has been for five years last past a non-resident of the state of Missouri and a resident of the state of Illinois; that the St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad Company, garnishee, is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Illinois and a citizen of said state, but has an office in the city of St. Louis, and an agent here, and transacts business in said city as well as in the state of Illinois.

2. That the defendant is yard-master of said railroad company, in its yards at East St. Louis, rendering no services for said garnishee, except in the state of Illinois; that the defendant was hired, was to be paid, and in fact was always paid, in the state of Illinois by said garnishee, the same as its other employes were paid in that state, he never having been paid by said garnishee in the state of Missouri.

3. That said garnishee owes the defendant, for wages rendered as the yard-master in East St. Louis, the sum of one hundred and twenty-five ($125) dollars, in pursuance of his employment as above stated and not otherwise; that, besides the sum so due by said garnishee to said defendant, it owes him nothing; that said garnishee at the time of the service of said garnishment had not, nor has it now in its hands, any property or effects whatsoever belonging to said defendant; that the sum due by said garnishee to said defendant is payable to him as aforesaid.”

This, and the transcript of the judgment, rendered by the justice of the peace, in the attachment proceeding against the defendant, Jessup, on service by publication, was all the evidence, whereupon the court entered judgment for the defendant garnishee.

The only question presented for our consideration is whether such judgment was erroneous in substance, no point being made as to its form.

It stands admitted that the debtor, the creditor, and the garnishee, are all non-residents, and that the debt was not, by the terms of the contract, payable in this state. It is conceded that one non-resident may sue another non-resident in this state by attachment, but the garnishee contends that, there being no property within this state on which the attachment could operate, the entire proceeding was without jurisdiction.

A proceeding by garnishment is not in the nature of a personal action against the garnishee. The garnishee can not, even by his voluntary appearance and answer, confer any jurisdiction upon the court as to the debt in his hands, unless proper steps have been taken to bring that debt into court for the purposes of condemnation. That proposition, in this state at least, is fully settled. Haley v. Railroad, 80 Mo. 112; Fletcher v. Wear, 81 Mo. 524; Masterson v. Railroad, 20 Mo. App. 653.

It necessarily results from this that the present proceeding can not be maintained, unless the debt of the garnishee to the attachment defendant was within the jurisdiction of the court for the purposes of condemnation.

It is evident that a debt, like all other property, must have its situs somewhere. The general proposition is laid down in the books that a debt has its situs where the creditor resides, and all authorities agree that for the purposes of taxation that is its situs or location. Any other holding would exempt that species of property from taxation altogether. It does not necessarily follow, however, that because its location for one purpose is in one certain place, it must be in the same place for all other purposes.

It is held with equal unanimity that when a debt, by the terms of the contract creating it, is payable at a fixed place, its location for all other purposes except the purpose above stated is at...