Lee v. City of Fairfield
Decision Date | 26 January 1933 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 188. |
Citation | 145 So. 669,226 Ala. 70 |
Parties | LEE v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD (MINOR, GARNISHEE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Richards V. Evans Judge.
Garnishment suit by Callie J. Lee against the City of Fairfield defendant, William Minor, garnishee. From a judgment discharging the garnishee, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
W. A Jacobs, of Birmingham, for appellant.
G. P. Benton, of Fairfield, for appellee.
This appeal is from a judgment denying plaintiff's motion for a judgment against the garnishee, and in discharging the latter.
The suit for personal injuries sustained upon a public street of the municipality of Fairfield resulted in judgment for plaintiff. A writ of garnishment in aid of the judgment issued to W. M. Minor, William Minor, and A. O. Chesser; and in answer to said garnishment, "A. O. Chesser, who being duly sworn," etc., and who "is authorized to make this answer *** says *** said garnishee was not indebted," and prays that the garnishment be dismissed with his reasonable costs for making the answer.
The city claimed, as exempt to it from garnishment, levy, and sale under execution or other processes, "money, rent, or indebtedness due by W. M. Minor, and, or, William Minor to the City of Fairfield," as rent due on defendant's "public property" used by it "in its corporate capacity for the purpose of raising revenue"; claimed that the revenue raised was used exclusively for municipal purposes, and that "it was necessary to pay the ordinary municipal expenses of government" of that municipality. There was no contest of the claim of exemptions. Code, § 7889.
There was answer of the garnishee, Minor, to like effect of the claim of exemptions, and demand for oral answer; and there was a motion to dismiss the garnishment, after answers of said garnishees, on the foregoing grounds.
The bill of exceptions presents the evidence on these several claims, answers, and motion. It was to the effect that W. M. Minor was not connected with the city, except that he leased its land called Park Area, located at the intersection of Commerce avenue and Valley road, "as a barbecue stand and not otherwise," under a written contract which may "not be assigned or transferred," nor may the "premises be subleased or underlet without the consent" of the city, and that the tenancy may be terminated by the landlord "without notice or demand," etc.; that the agreed rental was $50 per month; that witness paid And on this evidence the plaintiff-appellant rested.
The defendant then called the witness Smith, who testified that he was vice president and general manager of the Fairfield Land Company; was familiar with the subdivision and plat of the city, and with the triangular property in question, and had been since November, 1916, and that it was
The witness Culpepper, called by the city, testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial