Roeller v. Ames

• Decision Date: 21 January 1885
• Parties: MICHAEL ROELLER <I>vs.</I> ALBERT A. AMES.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

33 Minn. 132

MICHAEL ROELLER vs. ALBERT A. AMES.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 21, 1885.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin

county, Young, J., presiding, refusing to appoint a receiver in a supplementary proceeding.

Robinson & Bartleson, for appellant.

J. W. Cochran, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

Proceedings supplementary to execution were instituted against defendant, and an order served on him on the 7th of April, 1884, requiring him to appear before the court on the 12th of April, and disclose concerning his property, and enjoining him, meanwhile, from making any disposition of property not exempt. From the disclosure it appeared that defendant had been mayor of the city of Minneapolis for two years; that his term of office expired April 8th; that his salary as mayor was $1,000 a year; that the salary for the last quarter, ($250,) although not due or fully earned until April 8th, had been voted to him by the city council, and a warrant for the amount, on the city treasurer, directed to be drawn a day or two before the order in these proceedings was served on defendant; but the warrant had not in fact been issued or delivered to him. On this disclosure plaintiff asked for an order appointing a receiver to take charge of the warrant, and directing defendant to assign it to the receiver, which the court refused to do, and plaintiff appealed.

Numerous authorities hold that municipal corporations and their officers are exempt from garnishment, for the reason that otherwise public officers would be constantly harassed by such process, and compelled to be absent from their offices in attendance on court, to the serious interference with the performance of their official duties. This was decided to be the law in this state at an early date. McDougal v. Supervisors Hennepin Co., 4 Minn. 130, (184.) The reason assigned for this rule would apply to all cases, without reference to the character of the fund or claim sought to be reached by the garnishment; but, of course, would have no application to the present proceeding, which is against the defendant alone. But it has also been often held that the salary of a public officer due him from a municipal corporation cannot be reached or intercepted by his creditors by legal process. The reason assigned for this is, in substance, that municipal corporations are auxiliary to the state government; that their officers are public servants, employed to perform public duties; that the public have a right to fill these offices by the selection of the most suitable men; that these officers are usually dependent on their salaries for the support of themselves and families; that the efficiency of their services, or even their remaining in the public service, may depend upon the prompt payment of their salaries, and the certainty that they will receive them when due. Hence, if creditors can step in by any legal proceedings and prevent the payment of salaries directly to the officers in person, and divert the money to the satisfaction of their claims, the public service would suffer by impairing its efficiency, and perhaps depriving the public of the service of men whom it would be desired to retain.

This is not an exemption in favor of the officer, but a rule for the protection...