Merwin v. the City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 30 September 1867
• Citation: 45 Ill. 133,92 Am.Dec. 204,1867 WL 5232
• Parties: ELIAS MERWINv.THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Garnishee, etc.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

45 Ill. 133

1867 WL 5232 (Ill.)

92 Am.Dec. 204

ELIAS MERWIN

v.THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Garnishee, etc.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1867.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. ERASTUS S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.

This was a suit in attachment, commenced by the appellant in the court below, against one Samuel Nicolson, under chapter 9 of the Revised Statutes, entitled ““Attachments in Circuit Courts,” and the appellee, the City of Chicago, was summoned as garnishee. July 20, 1867, the city, without having answered, was, on motion, discharged as garnishee, and judgment rendered against appellant for costs. Whereupon, the appellant prayed an appeal to this court.

Messrs. FULLER & SHEPARD, for the appellant.

Mr. S. A. IRWIN, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:

The only question presented by this record is, whether municipal corporations in this State are liable to the process of garnishment. This court held, in The City of Chicago v. Hasley, 25 Ill. 596, 597, that the property of such a corporation could not be levied on and sold under execution. This decision was placed upon the grounds of public policy. However strong the obligation of a town or city to pay its debts, it was considered that to allow payment to be enforced by execution would so far impair the usefulness and power of the corporation, in the discharge of its government functions, that the public good required the denial of such a right. It was held that the 29th section of chapter 91 of the Revised Statutes, by which it is provided that the term ““persons,” when used in the statutes, shall include corporations, must be construed in the statute of judgments and executions, as referring to private corporations. Although this decision is not conclusive upon the question before us as res adjudicata, yet the entire spirit and reasoning upon which it is based must lead us to hold, that a municipal corporation is not liable to process of garnishment. The question has been often before the American courts, and although the decisions are not uniform, in a large majority of the cases it has been held the writ would not lie. The reason given for these decisions is uniformly the same, and is substantially that given by this court in the case in 25th Ill. It must be decided as a question of public policy. These municipal corporations are in the exercise of governmental powers to a very large extent. They control pecuniary interests of great magnitude, and vast numbers of human beings, who are more dependent on the municipal, for the security of life and property, than they are on either the State or the federal government. To permit the great public duties of this corporation to be imperfectly performed, in order that individuals may the better collect their private debts, would be to pervert the great objects of its creation.

That its efficiency for purposes of government would be impaired by holding it liable to garnishment, cannot be doubted. A large and growing city like Chicago, must constantly have hundreds of persons in its employment, and if...