Morris v. Union Pac. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 April 1881 |
| Citation | 56 Iowa 135,8 N.W. 804 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., GARNISHEE, ETC. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Pottawattamie circuit court.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company was garnished as the debtor of the defendant in this action, S. B. Jones, and upon its answer judgment was rendered thereon for plaintiff. The garnishee appeals. Other facts of the case appear in the opinion.A. J. Poppleton, J. M. Thurston, Wright & Baldwin, and C. J. Green, for appellant.
Charley Ogden and R. E. Montgomery, for appellee.
1. The cause was submitted to this court upon an agreed statement of facts, the material portions of which are, in substance, as follows: The garnishee, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, is a corporation organized under an act of congress, and operates a railroad terminating at Council Bluffs, in this state, where it has agents. On the fourth day of June, 1879, plaintiff commenced this action by attachment upon the record of a judgment rendered in Nebraska, alleging in his petition that the defendant was a nonresident of the state, and praying for an attachment against his property.
On the fifth day of June the Union Pacific Railroad was served with garnishment process, and, on the eighteenth day of April following, filed its answer, stating that at the date of the service of the garnishment process it owed defendant nothing, but on the day of answering it owed him $155, and defendant was, when process was served, and continues to be, in the service of the railroad company. It further states in its answer that it has no property or credits of defendant within the state of Iowa; that the sum of $155, shown to be due defendant from the railroad company, was earned by him as a clerk in the garnishee's employment in Nebraska, at the wages of $125 per month, and that sum owed to him by plaintiff is due him there, and is not payable in this state; and that the sum due defendant is in the state of Nebraska, and not in Iowa. It is further shown that as defendant Jones is a married man the credits in the garnishee's hands are exempt from attachment or execution under the laws of Nebraska, and that no service of process has been had upon defendant. The garnishee, in its answer, denies the jurisdiction of the circuit court over the credits in its hands in favor of defendant. Service of notice was made upon defendant by publication, and he did not appear to the action. Judgment was rendered against him by default.
The cause was continued as to the garnishee, and another writ of attachment was issued, and garnishment process was again served upon the railroad company. On the first day of February, 1880, it answered to the second garnishment process, alleging that it was not indebted to the defendant, and was not when the last process was served upon it; that the defendant was in the employment of the garnishee at that time, and continues therein; and that his earnings to the date of the service of the last garnishment process, from August 7, 1879, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial