Sanger v. City of Waco

• Decision Date: 24 February 1897
• Citation: 40 S.W. 549
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: SANGER et al. v. CITY OF WACO.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

40 S.W. 549

SANGER et al. v. CITY OF WACO.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 24, 1897.

Appeal from district court, McLennan county; L. W. Goodrich, Judge.

Garnishment suit by Sanger Bros. against the city of Waco, garnishee, and others. Judgment discharging the garnishee, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Boynton & Boynton, for appellants. Prendergast & Evans, for appellee.

KEY, J.

This case is before us on agreed facts, about which there is no controversy, and we adopt said agreement as it appears on pages 4, 5, and 6 of the transcript as this court's conclusions of fact.

But one question of law is presented for decision, and that is whether or not the earned compensation of a public officer is subject to garnishment. In Bank v. Fink, 86 Tex. 303, 24 S. W. 256, the supreme court held that it is contrary to public policy for a public officer to assign or give a lien upon his unearned compensation, whether such compensation be salary or fees; and in the course of the opinion it is said: "`Dignity of office,' in the sense that the term is used in the English cases, does not exist in this country; and yet there is a dignity, or at least should be, attending every office, in that sense that a proper and independent discharge of its duties inspires respect for the officer and for the office. In this more important sense of dignity, the same reason can be well applied in this country. The law provides compensation for official service in order to enable the officer to be free from the cares of making provision for his own support and that of his family during the term of office, that he may devote his whole time to the discharge of the duties of his office. If such officer is permitted to assign his salary or fees before earned, he may thus deprive himself and family of this support, and, to secure it, he must look to some other source, thereby depriving the state of the careful and thoughtful attention that the public interest demands. A hungry man is weak in the presence of temptation, no matter what may be his ability to withstand it in a state of independence. To deprive such an officer of the means of daily support for himself and family, while his time must be given to work in which he can expect no relief, would be a strong inducement to resort to methods which, if not dishonest, would at least be inconsistent with the public good, and the dignity of his office be destroyed by losing the respect and confidence of the public." We think...