Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Maltby

• Decision Date: 09 October 1885
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Parties: THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., v. W. J. MALTBY AND A. N. MALTBY, Partners as Maltby & Co

8 P. 235

34 Kan. 125

THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., v. W. J. MALTBY AND A. N. MALTBY, Partners as Maltby & Co

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 9, 1885

Error from Bourbon District Court.

ACTION brought by Maltby & Co. against The Railway Company and another, to recover $ 116.40 from said company because of its failure to answer as garnishee in an action brought by plaintiffs against George W. Ridgway before a justice of the peace. Trial by the court at the September Term, 1884, upon an agreed statement of facts. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs and against the defendant company for $ 62.25, and costs. New trial denied. The defendants bring the case to this court. The opinion states the facts.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

David Kelso, J. H. Sallee, and R. T. Holloway, for plaintiffs in error.

E. F Ware, and C. L. Ware, for defendants in error.

VALENTINE J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

VALENTINE, J.:

This was an action brought in the district court of Bourbon county, by W. J. Maltby and A. N. Maltby, partners as Maltby & Co., against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company and George W. Ridgway, to recover $ 116.40 from the railway company because of its failure to answer as garnishee in an action brought by Maltby & Co. against Ridgway, before a justice of the peace of said county. Ridgway and his family and Maltby & Co. were all residents of Sedalia, Missouri and the railway company was a Missouri corporation, but had been consolidated, under the laws of Kansas, with two Kansas railway companies, and did business and operated railroads in Kansas. The action brought before the justice of the peace was for groceries sold and delivered by Maltby & Co. to Ridgway at Sedalia, Missouri. The garnishee summons was served on the agent of the railway company in Bourbon county, Kansas, on July 10, 1883, and the original summons was served personally on Ridgway in the same county on July 17, 1883. The defendant Ridgway appeared personally before the justice of the peace and also by counsel, and judgment was rendered against him and in favor of Maltby & Co. for $ 258.68. The railway company did not appear within proper time, but afterward appeared and filed a paper with the justice of the peace, claiming that it was not liable as garnishee; that the court had no jurisdiction over it; and that the sum due from it to Ridgway, to wit, $ 58.20, was exempt from judicial process. The justice, however, refused to act upon the paper. At the time of the service of the garnishment summons upon the railway company it owed Ridgway just $ 58.20.

Afterward Maltby & Co. commenced this present action against the railway company, also making Ridgway a defendant, claiming from the railway company $ 116.40, because of its refusal to answer as garnishee as aforesaid. The railway company and Ridgway answered in this action separately, each, however, claiming that the debt due from the railway company to Ridgway was exempt from judicial process; that the railway company was not liable to be garnished for the same; and that the railway company was not liable in the action. The case was tried before the district court without a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts. Among the facts admitted were the following:

"The money due from the said railway company was for the personal earnings of said Ridgway, and was due to him within sixty days of the beginning of this suit, and was for his personal earnings as engineer upon said railway in Missouri, and necessary for the support of himself and family; and said wages are and were exempt from garnishment by the laws of the state of Missouri." "The family of said Ridgway consists of a wife and one child, who are dependent upon him for their support." "Plaintiffs admit that an action could have been brought in the state of Missouri against said Ridgway, except while he was absent from the state; and that personal service could have been had on said Ridgway in said state, both before and after said suit was begun in Kansas; and that a garnishment summons might have been served in said state upon the defendant railway therein; and that garnishment proceedings against the defendant railway company might have been instituted in the state of Missouri; and that if such proceedings had been instituted, the defendant, Ridgway, would have by reason of the exemption laws of the state of Missouri entirely defeated the collection of the plaintiffs' claim."

Upon the agreed statement of facts the court below rendered judgment in favor of Maltby & Co. and against the railway company for $ 58.20, and interest, amounting in all to $ 62.25 and costs. A motion was made for a new trial and overruled, and proper exceptions were taken; and the defendants, the Missouri Pacific Railway Company and Ridgway, now bring the case to this court for review.

The first and principal question which seems to be involved in this case is, whether the debt due from the railway company to Ridgway was and is exempt from garnishment process, or not. It seems to be admitted by the parties that the laws of a state, including exemption laws, can have no extra-territorial force; that no law can be imported into one state from another; yet that all actions for debts or actions upon contract, wherever they arise, are transitory in their character and may be brought in any jurisdiction where the debtor or his property may be found; also, that corporations doing business in this state, whether domestic or foreign, may be garnished in this state, and may be garnished by either a resident or non-resident plaintiff, and may also be garnished whether the action arose in this state or elsewhere, and whether the defendant is a resident or non-resident of the state: provided, of course, that the debt or thing attempted to be held in garnishment is or may be the subject of garnishment proceedings. And it has been held by this court that a foreign corporation doing business in this state may be garnished by a person presumably a resident of Kansas for a debt due from the foreign corporation to a nonresident employe of the corporation not present in Kansas, where the debt was created outside of Kansas and was exempt from garnishment in the state where the defendant and the garnishee resided and where the debt was created, but was not exempt under the laws of Kansas. (B. & M. Rld. Co. v. Thompson, 31 Kan. 180; same case, 47 Am. Rep. 497; same case, 18 Cent. L. J. 192, and note, 194, et seq.)

But the plaintiffs in error, defendants below, claim that no person or corporation can be garnished with regard to property or choses in action which are beyond the jurisdiction of the state, or are...