Rischert v. Kunz
| Decision Date | 22 June 1880 |
| Citation | 9 Mo.App. 283 |
| Parties | AUGUST RISCHERT, Appellant, v. HENRY KUNZ, GARNISHEE, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
The statutory lien of innkeepers upon the wages of guests cannot be enforced by garnishment.
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, THAYER, J.
Affirmed.
AUGUST REBENACH, for the appellant, cited: The State ex rel. v. Barada, 57 Mo. 562; Osborne v. Schutt, 67 Mo. 712.
CHARLES E. PEARCE, for the respondent, cited: Epstein v. Salorgne, 6 Mo. App. 352; Mosher v. Banking House, 6 Mo. App. 599; Fenglein v. Railroad Co., 6 Mo. App. 580; Keane v. Banking House, 4 Mo. App. 507.
This was garnishment on execution before a justice. The execution was issued on a judgment in favor of a boardinghouse keeper for the board of the execution defendant. It is contended that the service of the garnishment process and the return of the officer were defective. The trial anew in the Circuit Court was before the court. Evidence was introduced tending to show that the garnishee, at the time of his answer before the justice, admitted that the execution defendant had worked two weeks for the garnishee, and that the garnishee had owed him $25 for wages for that period, and had paid the man and discharged him the day before answering the interrogatories. The finding and judgment of the Circuit Court were in favor of the garnishee.
The statute provides that no person “shall be charged as garnishee on account of wages due from him to a defendant in his employ for the last thirty days' service.” Rev. Stats., sect. 2519. The act of 1878 concerning liens of innkeepers (Rev. Stats., sect. 3168) provides that “hotel and boarding-house keepers shall have a lien upon the baggage and other valuables of their guests and boarders, brought into such inn or boarding-house by such guests or boarders, and upon the wages of such guests or boarders, for their proper charges due from such guests or boarders for their accommodation, boarding, and lodging.” This act also provides for the manner in which this lien shall be enforced. The method provided in the act seems to be inapt to enforce a lien against a debt due the boarder, since it provides for a sale of the property on which the lien attaches. The contention would seem to be that, for this reason, the person owing the wages may be summoned as garnishee, although the Garnishment Act, as we have seen, expressly says he shall not. But the two provisions of the General...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Schneider v. Hoffmann
-
Hodo v. Benecke
...is, in effect, a proceeding to hold that company liable as garnishee, and the circuit court rightly held it to be ineffectual. Rischert v. Kuntz, 9 Mo. App. 283. Appellant insists that plaintiff was entitled to a judgment against the principal debtor Benecke, on the admitted facts. The stat......