Shelly v. Smith

• Decision Date: 05 October 1882
• Citation: 13 N.W. 419,59 Iowa 453
• Parties: SHELLY v. SMITH AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

59 Iowa 453

13 N.W. 419

SHELLY

v.SMITH AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 5, 1882.

Appeal from Lee circuit court.

This is a proceeding of garnishment upon execution from a justice's court. D. B. and Marinda Smith intervened, and claimed that the amounts garnished were exempt as personal earnings within 90 days. The justice rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff against the garnishees. Upon appeal, the circuit court held that the garnished funds were exempt. The plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.Anderson Bros. & Davis, for appellant.

D. N. Sprague, for appellees.

DAY, J.

The cause was tried to the court, and the facts were found as follows: “(1) Plaintiff recovered a judgment against defendants about the twenty-seventh of September, 1881, for the sum of $100 and costs, on which execution issued about the twenth-seventh of October, 1881, and Howard Tucker, George Rix, and Frank Warren were garnished, and upon answer by Warren that he owed defendant for board, September, 1881, $20, October, 1881, $20, and by Tucker that he owed for October $54, and Rix that he owed for October $40, a judgment was rendered against the garnishees; (2) that D. B. Smith is the husband of Marinda Smith, and the head of a family; (3) that Marinda Smith keeps a private boarding-house, and had 12 boarders at the time said three above-named boarders were garnished, who paid her at that time, in the aggregate, $244 per month; (4) that she had no capital in the beginning, but borrowed $25, and used her ordinary household and kitchen furniture in the business; (5) that she devoted her time to the business, and her daughter assists her, and besides she employs a cook, a chambermaid, a waiter, and a boy; (6) that all the money due from the boarders, others than those garnished, has been collected and paid out for supplies purchased on credit; (7) that the services of Marinda Smith are worth $100 per month, in said business, and that of her daughter $30 per month, and that they both devoted their time and service during the time the money garnishedwas earned, and are both members of the family of D. B. Smith. The money due plaintiff is not for supplies.”

The court found as a matter of law that the fund garnished was exempt from execution, for that it was the personal earnings of defendant and his family for work, labor, and services performed within 90 days immediately preceding the garnishment. The judge certified that the case involves the determination of a question of law, upon which it is desirable to have the opinion of this court, as follows: “Whether the money due from boarders for...