Sturges v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 23 April 1906
• Citation: 88 Miss. 508,40 So. 547
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: THEODORE STURGES v. WILEY J. JACKSON

40 So. 547

88 Miss. 508

THEODORE STURGES v. WILEY J. JACKSON

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 23, 1906

FROM the chancery court of Lauderdale county, HON. JAMES L MCCASKILL, Chancellor.

Jackson the appellee, was complainant in the court below; Sturges the appellant, was defendant there. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill of complaint the defendant appealed to the supreme court.

Jackson the complainant, filed a bill in equity for an injunction averring that he was employed on a stipulated salary of less than $ 100 a month; that defendant, Sturges, held a judgment against him obtained in a court of a justice of the peace; that since the rendition of the judgment complainant's wages have been garnisheed, although plaintiff in the judgment, defendant here, was notified by complainant that said monthly salary is exempt from garnishment. The bill further averred that the railroad company by which complainant is employed has promulgated a rule the effect of which is to dismiss from its service such of its employes as have garnishment proceedings instituted against them; that defendant knew of this rule of the railroad company, but persisted and threatened to continue to garnish complainant's exempt wages until he paid the judgment or lost his position. The prayer of the bill was that defendant be restrained from garnisheeing the exempt wages of complainant. The defendant demurred to the bill on the ground that the complainant was not entitled to relief for the following reasons: (1) He fails to show that the defendant is acting beyond his rights or is invading the rights of complainant. (2) Whether complainant's wages will or will not be exempt in the future is a question of fact, and not a question of law, and can only be determined by garnishment proceedings. (3) The whole tenor and effect of the prayer of said bill is that the defendant be enjoined or restrained from collecting by lawful means a judgment which the complainant in his said bill admits to be valid. (4) The complainant has an adequate remedy at law. (5) The complainant fails to show sufficiently reasonable apprehension of irreparable injury.

Decree reversed, cause remanded and bill dismissed.

John D. McInnis, Jr., for appellant.

The injunction should be dissolved and the bill dismissed because complainant fails to show that the defendant is acting beyond defendant's rights, or is invading the rights of complainaint.

The judgment plaintiff is given the right unequivocally and without qualification, when he finds any one indebted to the judgment defendant, to compel that one to come into court and answer as to the amount of indebtedness. The words of the statute are (Code 1892, § 2130): "On the suggestion in writing by the plaintiff, in a judgment or decree in any court upon which an execution may be issued," and an execution may be issued upon the defendant's judgment, though not finally levied, "that any person is indebted to the defendant, it shall be the duty of the clerk of such court, or of the justice of the peace in the case before him, to issue a writ of garnishment." And section 2135 requires the garnishee to answer the amount of indebtedness. Whenever the judgment plaintiff finds any one indebted to the judgment defendant, he may garnish, and compel the garnishee to answer. That is the whole law, nothing more, nothing less; and by no averment, no allegation, no inference, does the complainant intimate that the defendant is pursuing any course other than that marked out in the statute.

If the complainant has the right to plead, as a ground for injunction, that the railroad company had promulgated a rule that it would dispense with his services if he allowed it to be garnisheed, then if the railroad should promulgate a rule that if the complainant were even sued it would dispense with his services, the complainant could make that the ground of a prayer for injunction. If the railroad company should promulgate a rule that if an account were presented to the complainant it would dispense with his services, the complainant could make that the ground of a prayer for an injunction. In fact, if this rule of the railroad company can be invoked as a ground for an injunction, the railroad company may promulgate any rule in regard to complainant's indebtedness and the complainant can avoid payment of any of his debts by invoking such rule in a court of equity.

The defendant has the right under the Mississippi statutes to garnish the wages of the complainant without regard to the amount of such wages; under the statutes, the complainant may plead his exemption and have his wages released. Complainant is not pursuing the remedy marked out by the statute, and relief should be denied him. Driggs v. Norwood, 4 Am. St. Rep., 30.

An injunction is a preventative remedy; the defendant is acting strictly within his own rights, and, acting within his own rights, he cannot be doing a wrong to the complainant.

An injunction does not issue for the purpose of punishment, or to compel persons to do a particular act, but simply to prevent them from doing wrong. Sherman v. Clark, 97 Am. Dec., 516.

The fact that the defendant threatened to garnishee complainant's wages indefinitely, or as the bill alleges and the demurrer admits, until the complainant was discharged, entitles the defendant to a better...