Mignogna v. Chiaffarelli
| Decision Date | 07 November 1910 |
| Citation | 131 S.W. 769,151 Mo.App. 359 |
| Parties | STEPHEN MIGNOGNA, Respondent, v. MANFAIED CHIAFFARELLI, Appellant; Electric Park Amusement Company, Garnishee |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. James H. Slover, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Cause affirmed.
Bruce Barnett for appellant.
(1) The court erred in overruling the motion of the defendant (the appellant) to have his exemptions allowed out of the money deposited in court by the garnishees and in ordering said money paid to plaintiff (respondent). Each head of a family may hold as exempt any property, money debts or wages not exceeding three hundred dollars in value. Sec. 3162, R. S 1899. Except ten per cent thereof. Session Acts 1903, page 195. (2) The question as to whether the person claiming exemptions is a resident or nonresident of the state does not affect his right to exemptions except in cases where property or money is levied upon by attachment. Sec. 384, R. S. 1899; State to use v. Knott, 1 Mo.App. 151.
Williams Hunter & Guppin for respondent.
(1) Where the language of a statute leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the literal meaning of the words. Cole v. Skrainka, 105 Mo. 303; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 105 Mo.App. 207. (2) What is clearly implied by a statute is as much a part of it as if expressed in words. Coonce v. Munday, 3 Mo. 373; Frazier v. Gibson, 7 Mo. 271; Kamerick v Castleman, 21 Mo.App. 587. (3) "Where it is manifest upon the face of an act that an error has been made in the use of words, the court may correct the error and read the statute as corrected, in order to giveeffect to the obvious intention of the Legislature." 26 Am. and Eng Ency. Law (2 Ed.), p. 655.
The case out of which the present proceedings originated was once before this court and is reported in 135 Mo.App. 68, wherein the judgment of the trial court against the garnishees was affirmed. The garnishees after the affirmance of the judgment paid the fund into the court; whereupon Bruce Barnett, the attorney of Chiaffarelli, the judgment debtor, filed a motion asking that the balance of the fund, after deduction of certain costs, be paid to defendant as head of a family.
The motion recites that the judgment debtor was at the time of the institution of the suit and at all times since and now is the head of a family; that as such under the laws of the state he is entitled to hold as exempt a nine-tenths part, or ninety per cent of the amount in the hands of the garnishees. Upon the hearing of the motion it was sufficiently shown at the time of the rendition of the judgment against Chiaffarelli, that he was the head of a family, and a married man with two children; that shortly after the rendition of the judgment he left the state; that he was at no time a resident of Missouri; and that the sum garnisheed was due him as wages for services rendered the Electric Park Company.
The plaintiff in the judgment on the trial questioned the authority of Bruce Barnett on behalf of Chiaffarelli the debtor to claim the exemption. Mr. Barnett was a witness at the trial and he was asked, Q. "When did Chiaffarelli employ you to file this motion here for exemptions?" A. "Oh, Chiaffarelli employed me the day he was garnisheed." Q. "To file this motion here for exemptions?" A. "No, to save the money for him in any way it could be saved legally and lawfully." Q. "When did you hear from him, from Chiaffarelli?" A. "I haven't heard from him for a long time." Q. "As a matter of fact he isn't making this claim for exemptions personally?" A. "Oh, yes, he is." Q. "You are making it?" A. "I am making it for him."
The court overruled defendant's motion for exemptions and he appealed.
It is urged that notwithstanding the debtor was a non-resident of the state at the time of the rendition of the judgment and garnishment, as the head of a family, he was entitled to the exemption provided in section 3162, Revised Statutes 1899, and as amended by session acts 1903, page 195. The section reads as follows as amended: "Each head of a family, at his election, in lieu of the property mentioned in the first and second subdivisions of section 3159, may select and hold, exempt from execution, any other property, real personal or mixed, or debts and wages, not exceeding in value the amount of three hundred dollars, except ten per cent of any debt, income, salary or wages due such head of a family." The...
To continue reading
Request your trial