Smith v. Britton
| Decision Date | 11 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 28690 |
| Parties | SMITH v. BRITTON (CRISSWELL, Garnishee) |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. EXEMPTIONS--Purpose of Additional Exemption of Debtor's Earnings.
The purpose of the additional exemption is to protect debtor's family from privation and want, and not to enable them to live in affluence and luxury. The facts must show the need of the additional exemption in order to supply the minimum requirements of a decent and wholesome livelihood.
2. SAME--Facts Held Insufficient to Show Need of Additional Exemption of Garnisheed Earnings From Personal Services.
Held, facts insufficient to show need of additional exemption, and that it was not an abuse of judicial discretion to order application of garnisheed funds toward the payment of the judgment.
Appeal from District Court, Hughes County; H. H. Edwards, Judge.
Action by Louis Britton against Roy A. Smith; A. A. Criswell, garnishee. From judgment sustaining garnishment, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Orr & Woodford, for plaintiff in error.
Pryor & Sandlin, for defendants in error.
¶1 The plaintiff in error, defendant below, appealed from an order of the district court of Hughes county sustaining the garnishment of funds in the hands of a guardian due and owing to the defendant for professional services rendered certain restricted Indian wards of said guardian. The plaintiff's judgment was for the sum of $1,000, and the amount garnisheed was $899, one-fourth of which was ordered paid into court to be applied on the judgment. The defendant sought an exemption of the entire amount by filing an affidavit that said funds were current earnings of the past 90 days and that the 25 per cent. ordered held was necessary for the support of his family.
¶2 The evidence shows that the defendant was the head of a family consisting of himself, his wife and one daughter, 19 years of age, who was a student in the State University. The evidence also shows that during the three months' period covered by the garnishment he earned and collected the sum of $2,460. The defendant made a liberal estimate of his monthly expenditures at $1,964.81, which included about $100 per month for keeping his daughter in school. The amount actually held by order of the court was $224.15.
¶3 The defendant further contends that funds in the hands of a guardian are not subject to garnishment, and especially where such funds are derived from an agency or instrumentality of the federal government. The authorities cited in support of this contention do not touch upon the particular question raised, and the contention is entirely without merit.
¶4 It is conceded that the sum of $899 due the debtor from the guardian was all current earnings for personal and professional services earned during the last 90 days preceding the order of garnishment.
¶5 The only question in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial