Nix v. Goodhile

• Decision Date: 31 May 1895
• Citation: 63 N.W. 701,95 Iowa 282
• Parties: NIX v. GOODHILE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

95 Iowa 282

63 N.W. 701

NIX

v.GOODHILE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 31, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Delaware county.

Plaintiff is a judgment debtor to the defendant. He was an employé of the Illinois Central Railway Company, and the head of a family. On the 21st day of January, 1894, there was due him from the company his wages for the 40 days next preceding, which, because his personal earnings, were exempt from execution. The defendant took execution on his judgment, and garnished the company, and on the day that the garnishment was returnable the proceeding was dismissed. Plaintiff brings this action, alleging: “That the said railroad company pay their employés monthly, about the 25th day of each and every month, and on the 21st day of January, 1894, there was due plaintiff from said railroad company his earnings for his personal services for the forty days next preceding said 21st day of January, 1894, and no more. That on the said 21st day of January, 1894, the defendant, well knowing that plaintiff was the head of a family, and a resident of the state of Iowa, and an employé of said railroad company, and that no money or property of this plaintiff was in the hands or under the control of said railroad company other than his earnings for his personal services for a period not to exceed forty days prior to said 21st day of January, 1894, and well knowing that said personal earnings were exempt from execution, and would be paid by said railroad company to plaintiff in a few days, did, on said 21st day of January, 1894, knowingly, willfully, and maliciously, and with the purpose and intent to vex, harass, and injure this plaintiff, and to deprive him of said money, and the use thereof, and to unlawfully subject said exempt money to the payment of debts, and to vex, harass, and annoy said railroad company, so as to cause said railroad company to discharge plaintiff from their employ, and to cause and compel this plaintiff, in order to prevent such discharge, to use such exempt money, against his will, to pay the judgment hereinafter mentioned and described, cause and direct G. H. Odell, the sheriff of Delaware county, Iowa, to garnish and attach plaintiff's said exempt money and earnings for his personal services for a period of not to exceed forty days prior to said 21st day of January, 1894, then amounting to the sum of $25, in the hands of said railroad company, by seizing and attaching said money by garnishing said railroad company.” Then follow some averments as to the judgment and the items of actual damage sustained. The court sustained a demurrer to the petition, and the plaintiff appealed. Reversed.Charles Husted, for appellant.

Yoran & Arnold, for appellee.

GRANGER, J.

The only question in the case arises on the demurrer to the petition. Because of a growing practice in the state, the question is an important one. By observing the averments of the petition it will be seen that the action is for an abuse of legal process in a civil suit, the defendant having directed the sheriff to serve the execution by a garnishment of the company for a debt due for personal earnings exempt from execution. It is a rule of law of very general recognition that an action will lie for an abuse of such process. In Cooley on Torts (2d Ed., p. 220), it is said: “If process, either civil or criminal, is willfully made use of for a purpose not justified by the law, this is abuse for which an action will lie.” The same section gives some illustrations, as “entering up a judgment and suing out execution after a demand is satisfied; suing out an attachment for an amount greatly in excess of the debt; causing an arrest for more than is due, and levying an execution for an excessive amount.” These are but some of the abuses for which an action will lie. In fact, the right to such an action is not seriously to be questioned, but the more difficult question is, what is an abuse of process, so as...