Georgia & A. Ry. Co. v. Stollenwerck

• Decision Date: 11 February 1899
• Citation: 122 Ala. 539,25 So. 258
• Parties: GEORGIA & A. RY. CO. v. STOLLENWERCK.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

25 So. 258

122 Ala. 539

GEORGIA & A. RY. CO. v. STOLLENWERCK.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 11, 1899

Appeal from city court of Birmingham; W. W. Wilkerson, Judge.

Action by Estelle Stollenwerck against E. A. Smith. Judgment for plaintiff, and garnishment issued against the Georgia &amp Alabama Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and garnishee appeals. Affirmed.

Estelle Stollenwerck on September 7, 1896, recovered a judgment in the city court of Birmingham against E. A. Smith for $545.90 and costs. On March 24, 1897, the plaintiff in said judgment sued out a writ of garnishment against the Georgia & Alabama Railway Company. On March 30, 1897, the writ of garnishment was served upon said garnishee. On April 24, 1897, the garnishee filed its written answer, and thereafter, on February 12, 1898, on motion of the plaintiff, the garnishee was required to appear and answer orally in open court. There was no notice of this hearing of the answer of the garnishee in open court issued, or served upon the defendant in the judgment. The following facts were disclosed by the answers of the garnishee: The Georgia & Alabama Railway Company was a body corporate, incorporated under the laws of Georgia on August 15, 1895, and subsequently, during the same month incorporated under the laws of Alabama. E. A. Smith, the defendant in the original suit, was employed by the garnishee as soliciting freight agent, and at the time of the service of the garnishment, and for some time prior thereto, he had his headquarters at Evansville, Ind., and was a nonresident of the state of Alabama. When the writ of garnishment was served, the garnishee owed Smith his salary for the month of March, 1897. Smith continued in the service of the garnishee up to March 15, 1897. Under the contract existing between the garnishee and Smith, they were to pay his traveling expenses and the arrangement was that Smith was to pay them, and at the end of the month he would be reimbursed therefor. After the service of the writ of garnishment, the garnishee reimbursed Smith for his traveling expenses during the month of March and April to the extent of $85. From the time of the service of the writ of garnishment to the time Smith left the service of the garnishee, there was a balance due Smith from the garnishee, for salary, of $250.50. The garnishee moved the court to dismiss it on its answer. The court overruled this motion, and the garnishee duly excepted. The garnishee then suggested to the court that the defendant, E. A. Smith had never been notified or served with any notice of garnishment in this suit, and thereupon moved the court to dismiss said suit against the garnishee on these grounds. The court overruled the motion, and the garnishee duly excepted. The plaintiff then moved the court to render judgment against the garnishee in her favor for the amount the garnishee admitted it owed Smith, and for the amount which was paid to Smith to reimburse him for traveling expenses after the service of the writ of garnishment. This motion was granted, and the court rendered judgment accordingly for $350.50. To the rendition of this judgment the garnishee duly excepted, and also excepted to the court's rendering judgment against it for the amount due Smith for salary, and for the amount paid Smith to reimburse him for traveling expenses during the months of March and April, respectively. The garnishee appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved.

John D. & C. H. Roquemore, for appellant.

George Huddleston and W. T. Hill, for appellee.

TYSON J.

1. The proof shows that the appellant company, the garnishee below, was incorporated in the state of Georgia on the 15th August, 1895, and was subsequently, in the same month, incorporated in the state of Alabama. It had, therefore, legal existence or residence in each of these states, for the purposes of operating its line and transacting its corporate business. For such purposes the corporation was a legal unit, and, when sued in either state, it could not plead its nonresidence in the other. Railroad Co. v. Carr, 76 Ala. 388; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Alabama, 107 U.S. 581, 2 S.Ct. 432; 2 Mor. Priv. Corp. § 991.

2. The appellant company, having been chartered by, and operating its line and transacting business within, this state, was subject to the process of garnishment in this suit, although the debt due the defendant may have been created in another state, and he may have been a nonresident of this state at the date of the service of the garnishment writ. The situs of a debt, in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, is the domicile of the creditor. Railroad Co. v. Kennedy, 83 Ala. 462, 3 So. 852; Railroad Co. v. Chumley, 92 Ala. 317, 9 So. 286; Railroad Co. v. Dooley, 78 Ala. 524.

3. The writ of garnishment was executed on the garnishee on the 30th of March, 1897. It was sued out in aid of the collection of a judgment theretofore rendered in favor of the appellee against the defendant, E....