Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Swartz

• Citation: 115 S.W. 275
• Parties: MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. SWARTZ.
• Decision Date: 10 December 1908
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas

115 S.W. 275

MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. SWARTZ.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

December 10, 1908.

On Rehearing, January 21, 1909.

Appeal from Grayson County Court; J. W. Hassell, Judge.

Action by Sam Swartz against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified.

N. H. L. Decker, for appellant. J. S. Kone, for appellee.

HODGES, J.

The appellee, Swartz, recovered a judgment against the appellant in the justice court of Grayson county for the sum of $92.35 claimed to be due for wages for personal services rendered the appellant as one of its employés. The following is the substance of the agreed statement of facts: The appellee, Sam Swartz, worked for the appellant as a brakeman during the month of April, 1906, and earned as wages the sum of $107.85. These services were performed on the appellant's line of railway from Denison, Tex., north to Muskogee, Okl., and from Denison south in the state of Texas. The wages were usually paid at Denison, Tex., and that is where Swartz expected to receive them. During the month of April, 1906, and before that time, Swartz was indebted to W. S. Hibbard in the sum of $69.20. Hibbard transferred this debt to Spencer Lewis, who resided in Jackson county, Mo. Some time in April Lewis filed suit upon this debt against the appellee in a court of competent jurisdiction in Jackson county, Mo., and at the same time applied for and obtained garnishment process against the appellant, who at that time was operating a line of railway through Jackson county, Mo., and had offices and agents in that county. The appellant as garnishee answered, and in its answer pleaded that the debt due Swartz was not subject to garnishment; that it was due for wages, which were exempt in Texas. The justice court in Missouri rendered a judgment in favor of Lewis against Swartz for the sum sued for and costs, aggregating $79.90, and also in favor of Lewis against the appellant as garnishee for the same amount, holding that the railway company was liable in the garnishment proceedings. Swartz and his attorney were notified of the rendition of the judgment, and were asked if they desired the case appealed. They replied that they did not care whether it was appealed or not. The appellant thereupon, in June, 1906, paid off the judgment and costs. Swartz had procured from the appellant three meal books of the value of $5 each, which, by agreement between him and the appellant, were to be deducted from his wages together with an additional 50 cents for hospital fees for April. The appellant tendered into court in this suit $12.45, which would be the correct amount due if it was entitled to a credit for the amount paid upon the judgment rendered in Missouri. At the time the judgment was rendered against Swartz in Missouri he was a nonresident of that state, and was residing in Texas. Under the laws of Missouri a nonresident was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption in favor of current wages for personal services. Upon the foregoing facts the court rendered judgment against the appellant, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

Under the facts as shown by the record, the appellee was not entitled to a judgment for the sum paid by the appellant in satisfaction of the Missouri judgment. That judgment was valid and binding in this state against the appellee as to the sum adjudged against the appellant as the garnishee in that suit. The garnishment was in the nature of proceeding in rem, and a judgment therein was binding on a nonresident cited by publication or having only constructive notice of the original suit. For such purpose the situs of the debt is where the debtor is or may be found. C. R. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 19 Sup. Ct. 797, 43 L. Ed. 1144; Berry v. Davis, 77 Tex. 191, 13 S. W. 978, 19 Am. St. Rep. 748; Austin Nat. Bank v. Bergen (Tex. Civ. App.) 47 S. W. 1037. In the first case above cited it is held that the right of exemption is not a part of the contract, but affects only the remedy, and is therefore governed by the law of the forum.

The judgment of the trial court will be reformed as follows: Judgment is rendered against the appellant for $12.45, the amount tendered and paid into court upon the trial below, and that all costs, both of this court and the court below, be taxed against the appellee.

On Rehearing.

A further investigation of the authorities bearing upon the questions here involved has thoroughly convinced us of the correctness of the conclusions at which we arrived in the original disposition of the case. But, in view of the fact that some of the more important authorities upon which that decision should be made to rest were omitted, we think it proper to here present them as well as to briefly discuss the cases cited by the appellee in his motion for a rehearing. It must be borne in mind that the issue raised, and upon the determination of which the disposition of the case was made to rest, involved the decision of a federal question; that is, whether the county court from which this appeal comes gave full faith and credit to the judgment of a court of another state, as is required by the Constitution of the United States. If the judgment rendered in the state of Missouri against the appellant in the garnishment proceedings is valid in that state, then under the provisions of the Constitution referred to it is binding upon the courts of this state, and full faith and credit...