Moscow Hardware Co. v. Colson

• Decision Date: 19 December 1907
• Citation: 158 F. 199
• Parties: MOSCOW HARDWARE CO., Limited, v. COLSON et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

158 F. 199

MOSCOW HARDWARE CO., Limited, v. COLSON et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Idaho, Northern Division.

December 19, 1907

Geo. G Pickett and J. C. Orland, for plaintiff.

Forney & Moore, for defendants.

DIETRICH District Judge.

'The Regents of the University of Idaho,' a corporation appears specially and moves to quash the notice of garnishment served upon it. The motion is resisted by the plaintiff. The sole question is whether or not the moving corporation is subject to garnishment, process issued and served pursuant to the laws of the state of Idaho.

The University of Idaho was established by an act of the Legislature of the territory of Idaho in 1889 (Laws 1889, p 17). The government of the university was vested in a Board of Regents, which is specifically provided for in the act. By section 3 it is provided that:

'The Board of Regents and their successors in office shall constitute a body corporate by the name of 'The Regents of the University of Idaho,' and shall possess all the powers necessary or convenient to accomplish the objects and perform the duties prescribed by law,' etc.

When the territory was admitted as a state, certain public lands were donated for the support of the university. By section 10 of article 9 of the Constitution of Idaho it was provided that:

'All the rights, immunities, franchises and endowments heretofore granted thereto by the territory of Idaho are hereby perpetuated unto the said university. The Regents shall have the general supervision of the university and the control and direction of all the funds of, and appropriations to, the university, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law.'

My attention has been called by plaintiff to State ex rel. Robinson v. Carr, Auditor, 111 Ind. 335, 12 N.E. 318, and Sterling v. Regents of the University of Michigan, 110 Mich. 369, 68 N.W. 253, 34 L.R.A. 150, in support of the contention that 'the Regents of the University of Idaho' is not a 'municipal' corporation; and it may be conceded that the first case mentioned is fairly in support of this view. Other courts have adopted a contrary view. See note to State ex rel. Little v. Regents, 29 L.R.A. 378. But it seems to me to be wholly unimportant to discuss the precise technical meaning of the phrase 'municipal corporation,' or to determine whether the Regents of the University of Idaho are, strictly speaking, a municipal corporation or a public corporation, or under just what head it should be classed. Its origin, maintenance, and purpose are all so distinctively public that, so far as the question under consideration is concerned, it is clear that the rules relating to municipal corporations and quasi municipal corporations should upon principle be made to apply to this corporation. It is distinctively and exclusively a public educational institution, brought into existence and maintained solely for the purpose of performing certain administrative functions of the state. The prevailing, although not universal, rule, is that, in the absence of a statute clearly expressing the intention of the Legislature to the contrary, the state, its officers, and its agencies, such as counties, school districts, municipal corporations strictly speaking, and other public bodies created for the purpose of performing administrative functions of government, are not subject to garnishment process. The rule is based upon considerations of public policy. The general rule is so familiar and the reasons supporting it have been so frequently and so generally stated, not only in the decisions originating in the jurisdictions where it prevails, but in the text-books, that no useful purpose would be subserved in restating them. See Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20, 11 L.Ed. 857; Providence v. Virginia (C.C.) 11 F. 284; Pringle v. Guild, 118 F. 655; Keene v. Smith, 44 Or. 525, 75 P. 1065; Skelly v. School District, 103 Cal. 652, 37 P. 643; State ex rel. Summerfield v. Tyler, 14 Wash. 495, 45 P. 31, 37 L.R.A. 207, 53 Am.St.Rep. 878; Divine v. Harvie, 7 T.B.Mon. (Ky.) 439. 18 Am.Dec. 194; 14 Am. & Eng. of Law (2d Ed.) 811, 812; 20 Cyc. 988.

It is undoubtedly true that every state has the right to subject all persons to garnishment process and to include in the term 'persons' public as well as private corporations; but, by reason of the injury which the courts have generally held would accrue to public interests by permitting the state and its agencies to be garnished, the intention of the Legislature to confer such right of garnishment upon a creditor will not be inferred from general language, but the intention of the Legislature must clearly appear. This is a rule of statutory construction prevailing not only with regard to attachment statutes, but to all statutes which would operate to encroach upon what are commonly referred to as 'sovereign rights,' or interfere with the orderly performance of public functions by those agencies established for the administration of government. In Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 239, 22 L.Ed. 80, the court said:

'The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him (the king) in the least if they tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights or interests. * * * The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in the different states and practically in the federal courts.'

By section 915, Rev. St. U.S. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 684), the state attachment laws are made applicable to common-law causes in the Circuit Courts of the United States. By subdivision 5 of section 4307 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho of 1887, it is provided that debts and credits, etc not capable of manual delivery, must be attached by leaving with the 'person' owing such debts a copy of the writ of attachment and a notice that the debt owing by such person is attached, in...