Mclellan v. Young

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Citation: 54 Ga. 399
• Parties: Leanper C. McLellan, plaintiff in error. v. Dillard M. Young et al, defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

54 Ga. 399

Leanper C. McLellan, plaintiff in error. v. Dillard M. Young et al, defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1875.)

Garnishment. Municipal corporations. Before Judge Knight. Cobb Superior Court. November Term, 1874.

McLellan recovered a judgment against Young on an account for provisions furnished to him and his family. Process of garnishment was served on the Mayor and City Council of Marietta. The defendant was an officer of said garnishee, being the marshal of the city of Marietta, receiving a salary of more than $500 00 per annum, payable monthly. The garnishee was indebted to him as such officer.

The case was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. The garnishment was dismissed on the ground thatthe salary of an officer of a municipal corporation could not be reached by such process. To this ruling¹ the plaintiff excepted.

W. T. & W. J. Winn, for plaintiff in error.

C. C. Winn; C. D. Phillips, for defendants.

McCay, Judge.

In the case of Holt v. Experience, 26 Georgia, 113, this court decided that municipal corporations were not subject to garnishment for the salaries of their officers. So in 37 Georgia, 240, it was held that the Western and Atlantic Railroad was not subject to be garnished for the salaries of its officers. Both of these cases go upon the idea of public policy. In both cases the officer was a public servant, selected to do a public duty, and that the public ought not 'to be thwarted or interfered with by contests with individuals as to the services of its officers. The exemption is not for the benefit of the officer, *but because the public is not to be harrassed and inconvenienced by petty suits in the shape of garnishments, and the efficiency of its servants interefered with by any uncertainty whether when the salary is due it will be paid. The act of 1850 recognizes this principle in that whilst it authorizes garnishments against corporations generally when the salary exceeds a certain amount, expressly exempts municipal corporations. But this exception was doubtless inserted simply to prevent misconception arising from the general use of the word "corporation" in the body of the act. The decision in 26 Georgia and in 37 Ibid., on the subject of the exemption of municipal corporations from garnishment for the salaries of its officers, on principle, is sustained by the authorities in other states. Such is the rule in Pennsylvania: Erie v. Knapp, 29 Penn. St., 173. In Minnesota, 4 Minn., 184. In Vermont, 6 Vt, 121. In Wisconsin, 15 Wis., 193. In Massachusetts, 13 Grey, 200. In Missouri, 11 Mo., 59; 23 Ibid., 239. In Connecticut, 11 Conn., 123. In Alabama, 33 Ala., 69. In Maryland, 8 Md., 95. Nor is there anything in the act of 1872 which even suggests an intent...