Singer Manufacturing Company v. Fleming

• Decision Date: 06 March 1894
• Docket Number: 5662
• Citation: 58 N.W. 226,39 Neb. 679
• Parties: SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. CHARLES R. FLEMING
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

58 N.W. 226

39 Neb. 679

SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. CHARLES R. FLEMING

No. 5662

Supreme Court of Nebraska

March 6, 1894

ERROR from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before DOANE, J.

AFFIRMED.

Breckenridge Breckenridge & Crofoot, for plaintiff in error:

The law upon which the judgment is based is unconstitutional because the act is broader than its title. The penalties provided in section 4 of the act are clearly beyond the scope of, and not indicated by the scope of, the title of the act. (Sec. 11 art. 3, Constitution; White v. City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505; Ex parte Thomason, 16 Neb. 238; Messenger v State, 25 Neb. 674; Touzalin v. City of Omaha, 25 Neb. 817.)

The law is unconstitutional also because it imposes a penalty which is not contributed to the school fund. (Sec. 5, art. 8, Constitution; Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 45.)

The act is unconstitutional, as a vicious example of class legislation. (Sec. 15, art. 3, Constitution; Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37.)

The act, if valid, can have no application to persons or corporations not domiciled in Nebraska. Corporations are citizens and residents of the state, under the laws of which they were created, and cannot by engaging in business in another state acquire a residence there. (Fales v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 32 F. 673; Insurance Co. v. Francis, 11 Wall. [U. S.], 210; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 377; Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 5; Booth v. St. Louis Fire Engine Mfg. Co., 40 F. 1; Bensinger Register Co. v. National Register Co., 42 F. 81.)

The judgment infringes upon the "full faith and credit" clause of the federal constitution. (Secs. 1, 2, art. 4, Constitution, United States; Mooney v. Union P. R. Co., Garnishee, 60 Iowa 346; Harwell v. Sharp, 85 Ga. 124; Jenks v. Ludden, 27 N.W. [Minn.], 188; Warner v. Jaffray, 96 N.Y. 248; Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. [U. S.], 139; Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107; Hervey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works, 93 U.S. 664; Walworth v. Harris, 129 U.S. 355; Scudder v. Union Nat. Bank, 91 U.S. 406.)

Kennedy, Gilbert & Anderson, contra:

Chapter 25 of Laws, 1889, is constitutional, the subject of the bill is fairly expressed in the title, and there is a compliance with the constitutional requirements. (White v. City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 516; People v. McCallum, 1 Neb. 194; State v. Ream, 16 Neb. 683; State v. Bush, 45 Kan. 138; State v. Barrett, 27 Kan. 213.)

The law does not undertake to divert any fine from the school fund. The recoverable items, "costs, expenses, and attorney's fees," all fall properly within legitimate costs and damages when the statute allows their recovery. (Winkler v. Roeder, 23 Neb. 709; Rich v. Stretch, 4 Neb. 189; Seidentopf v. Annabil, 6 Neb. 524; Heard v. Dubuque County Bank, 8 Neb. 13; Hand v. Phillips, 18 Neb. 595.)

The judgment of the district court does not infringe on the "full faith and credit" clause of the federal constitution. The exemption existing where a debt is contracted is a vested right in rem, which follows the debt into any jurisdiction in which an action may be brought. The situs of the debt will be deemed to be at the domicile of the wage-earner by whose labor the debt due him was created. (Mason v. Beebee, 44 F. 556; Turner v. Sioux City & P. R. Co., 19 Neb. 246; Wright v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 19 Neb. 175; Freeman, Judgments, sec. 580.)

OPINION

The opinion contains a statement of the facts.

IRVINE, C.

The plaintiff in error is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey. It has a place of doing business styled a "general agency," at Denver, Colorado. It has also agencies in Iowa and Nebraska, and does business in both of these states. The agents there report to the general agent at Denver. The defendant in error is a resident of Nebraska, the head of a family, and an employe of the Union Pacific Railway Company, whose lines extend into both Iowa and Nebraska. Fleming bought from the Singer Company a sewing machine upon credit. The agent of the Singer company in Omaha, after some efforts to collect the bill, returned it to the general agent at Denver, who in turn sent it to the agent in Council Bluffs, Iowa. The agent at Council Bluffs brought an action in Pottawattamie county, Iowa, against Fleming on behalf of the Singer Company, proceeding by process of foreign attachment and garnished the Union Pacific Railway Company. The result of this proceeding was that wages of Fleming to the amount of $ 38.05, due him from the railroad company, were seized by the Iowa court and appropriated to the payment of the judgment there rendered against Fleming. Fleming then instituted this action in Douglas county, Nebraska, under sections 531c, 531d, 531e, and 531f of the Code of Civil Procedure to recover from the Singer Company the debt so garnished, with costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. The wages reached by garnishment were earned within sixty days prior to the commencement of the action in Iowa. Judgment was rendered in favor of Fleming in the district court of Douglas county in the sum of $ 95.55 and costs, from which the Singer Company prosecutes error. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of evidence to support a judgment for that amount, but the judgment is sought to be reversed upon three grounds:

First--That the statute under which the action was brought is contrary to the constitution of Nebraska.

Second--That it conflicts with section 1 of article 4 of the constitution of the United States, requiring that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

Third--That if the law be constitutional, it does not apply to foreign corporations.

The statute referred to is as follows:

"Sec. 531c. That it be, and is hereby declared, unlawful for any creditor of, or other holder of any evidence of debt, book account, or claim of any name or nature against any laborer, servant, clerk, or other employe of any corporation. firm, or individual, in this state, for the purpose below stated, to sell, assign, transfer, or by any means dispose of any such claim, book account, bill, or debt of any name or nature whatever, to any person or persons, firm, corporation, or institution, or to institute in this state or elsewhere, or prosecute any suit or action for any such claim or debt against any such laborer, servant, clerk, or employe by any process seeking to seize, attach, or garnish the wages of such person or persons earned within sixty days prior to the commencement of such proceeding for the purpose of avoiding the effect of the laws of the state of Nebraska concerning exemptions.

"Sec. 531d. That it is hereby declared unlawful for any person or persons to aid, assist, abet, or counsel a violation of section one of this act for any purpose whatever.

"Sec. 531e. In any proceeding, civil or criminal, growing out of a breach of sections one or two of this act, proof of the institution of a suit or service of garnishment summons by any persons, firm, or individual, in any court of any state or territory other than this state or in this state to seize by process of garnishment, or otherwise, any of the wages of such persons as defined in section one of this act, shall be deemed prima facie evidence of an evasion of the laws of the state of Nebraska and a breach of the provisions of this act on the part of the creditor or resident in Nebraska causing the same to be done.

"Sec. 531f. Any persons, firm, company, corporation, or business institution guilty of a violation of sections one or two of this act shall be liable to the party injured through such violation of this act, for the amount of the debt sold, assigned, transferred, garnished, or sued upon, with all costs and expenses and a reasonable attorney's fee, to be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state, and shall further be liable by prosecution to punishment by a fine not exceeding the sum of two hundred dollars and costs of prosecution."

1. Three arguments are made upon the proposition that the statute is in conflict with the constitution of Nebraska. In the first place it is said that the act is broader than its title. The title is as follows: "An act to provide better protection for the earnings of laborers, servants, and other employes of corporations, firms, or individuals engaged in interstate business." We are somewhat at a loss to appreciate the argument based on this proposition. It seems to be the theory of counsel that that portion of the act which provides for the recovery of the debt, costs, expenses, and attorney's fee, and which enacts a penalty for the violation of the law, is not expressed in the title. These features are not distinctly expressed, but the title to the act need not amount to an analysis or complete abstract of its text. It is sufficient if the title, by general language, fairly expresses its subject-matter. Where a bill has but one general object, it will be sufficient if the subject is fairly expressed in the title. (People v. McCallum, 1 Neb. 182; State v. Ream, 16 Neb. 681, 21 N.W. 398.) The title of this act is comprehensive. Merely to declare the doing of certain acts unlawful would be nugatory unless the act itself or other provisions of the law provided a redress for injuries inflicted by reason of its violation. Without the section providing a remedy the act would not provide "for the better protection of the earnings" of the persons sought to be protected. Both a substantial enactment of law and a remedy for its violation are fairly included in the title, and the act would not be complete in the absence of either provision.

It is next urged that the act is unconstitutional because...