Hennig v. Staed

• Decision Date: 03 April 1897
• Citation: 138 Mo. 430,40 S.W. 95
• Parties: HENNIG et al. v. STAED, Sheriff.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

40 S.W. 95

138 Mo. 430

HENNIG et al. v. STAED, Sheriff.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 3, 1897.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — STATUTE MAKING LABORERS PREFERRED CREDITORS — DUE PROCESS OF LAW — TITLE OF ACT.

1. Rev. St. 1889, § 4911, making debts due for labor preferred claims against the property of the employer when seized by creditors, or when his business has been placed in the hands of a receiver or trustee, and which requires servants to present their claims under oath to the officer or court holding such property within 10 days after its seizure on execution or attachment, or within 30 days after taking by a receiver or trustee, and directs payment first of such claims from the proceeds of the property unless exceptions to their allowance shall be filed, in which case the claimants shall be required to reduce their claims to judgment, is not unconstitutional, as taking property without due process of law; the presentation of the claims being a valid substituted service of notice of such claims to all persons interested, and the right to contest them being given to all such persons.

2. Rev. St. 1889, § 4911, having been originally passed as a separate act, under the title of "An act for the protection of employés and laborers by making them preferred creditors for certain claims," is not invalid, under Const. art. 4, § 28, providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, because it was afterwards, in making the revision of 1889, incorporated in the chapter relating to executions, which was passed as a revised bill, the heads under which the various laws shall be grouped in making a revision being left to the discretion of the legislature by Const. art. 4, § 41.

Appeal from St. Louis city court; P. R. Flitcraft, Judge.

Action by the Continental National Bank against the A. Siegel Gas-Fixture Company, by attachment. Jule A. Hennig and others presented claims for labor against the defendant to Patrick M. Staed, sheriff, who was in possession of the attached property, and, on the refusal of the sheriff to pay such claims, interpleaded in the action by motion for an order requiring their payment. From an order so made, and from the overruling of a motion to set it aside, the sheriff appeals. Affirmed.

On the 10th day of November, 1894, the Continental National Bank commenced a suit by attachment against the A. Siegel Gas-Fixture Company, to recover judgment on notes exceeding $19,000. Under a writ of attachment in the cause, the property of said company was levied upon, and, under an order of the court, was sold for about $10,000. Within 10 days after the levy upon the property, the respondents herein, John A. Hennig, and 18 other persons, each presented to the appellant, then sheriff of the city of St. Louis, who had charge of the property, a written statement, under oath, showing that they were laborers and employés of said company, and had performed work and labor for it within six months next preceding the seizure of the property, and showing the amount due after allowing all just credits and set-offs, the kind of work for which such claim was due, and when performed, and asked that their claim for wages be paid them out of the proceeds of said property. The sheriff declined to pay the claims, and the claimants thereupon filed in the court in which the attachment suit was pending a motion, in the nature of an interplea, setting forth the facts, and stating that no person interested had filed exceptions to their claims, or otherwise contested them. They asked an order of the court requiring the sheriff to pay the claims. An order was made on the sheriff to show cause on or before March 16, 1895. The sheriff filed his return March 13, 1895. By his return, he admitted the attachment, seizure, and sale of the property, presentation of the statement as charged, and his refusal to pay. For cause, he states that the attorneys of the attaching creditors objected to payment, on the ground that section 4911, Rev. St. 1889, under which payment is claimed, is unconstitutional and void; that the attaching creditor has filed exceptions, and claimants have not reduced their claims to judgment. The case was heard on the motion and the return of the sheriff. The motion was sustained, and the sheriff was ordered to pay the claims out of the proceeds of the sale of the property in his hands. A motion to set aside the order was filed by the sheriff. The grounds of the motion are (1) because the plaintiff in the attachment suit protests and objects to payments being made; (2) because the statute under which the claims are made is unconstitutional; * * * (4) because the attaching creditor acquired a first lien, and its debt exceeds the amount of the funds in the hands of the sheriff; (5) because the proceedings under which the order was made are without warrant of law. The motion was overruled, and the sheriff appealed.

S. N. Taylor and Chas. Erd, for appellant. Jas. R. Kinealy and L. A. McGinnis, for respondents.

MACFARLANE, J. (after stating the facts).

The section of the statute under which these claims are made is as follows: "Hereafter when the property of any company, corporation, firm or persons shall be seized upon by any process of any court of this state, or when their business shall be suspended by the action of creditors, or be put into the hands of a receiver or trustee, then in all such cases the debts owing to laborers or servants, which have accrued by reason of their labor or employment, to an amount not exceeding one hundred dollars to each employé, for work or labor performed within six months next preceding the seizure or transfer of such property, shall be considered and treated as preferred debts, and such laborers or employés shall be preferred creditors, and shall be first paid in full; and if there be not sufficient to pay them in full, then the same shall be paid to them pro rata, after paying costs. Any such laborer or servant desiring to enforce his or her claim for wages under this chapter shall present a statement under oath showing the amount due after allowing all just credits and set-offs, the kind of work for which such wages are due, and when performed, to the officer, person...