Teager v. Landsley

• Decision Date: 20 April 1886
• Citation: 27 N.W. 739,69 Iowa 725
• Parties: TEAGER AND ANOTHER v. LANDSLEY AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

69 Iowa 725

27 N.W. 739

TEAGER AND ANOTHER

v.LANDSLEY AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 20, 1886.

Appeal from superior court, Cedar Rapids.

Action in equity to restrain the defendants from prosecuting an action at law in the courts of Minnesota. The relief asked by the plaintiffs was granted, and the defendants appeal.Geo. W. Wilson, for appellants.

Smith & Powell, for appellees.

SEEVERS, J.

The plaintiffs are husband and wife, and they are residents of this state. They became indebted to E. H. Prescott, who is also a resident of this state. Prescott obtained a judgment against the plaintiffs for such indebtedness. The plaintiff Robert Teager was an employe of the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company, and Prescott caused an execution to issue on his judgment, and attached the company as garnishee. There was a trial in the courts in this state, and it was found that the money due from the railroad company was exempt from execution, and therefore the proceeding in garnishment was dismissed. Afterwards Prescott assigned his judgment to the defendant Landsley, who obtained a transcript of the judgment, and thereon commenced an action in the courts of Minnesota, and caused the said company to be again garnished as the supposed debtor of Robert Teager, and it is this action the defendants were enjoined from prosecuting.

The judgment was assigned to Landsley without his knowledge, and, in fact, as the court found, he held the judgment as trustee for Prescott. It is not claimed that under the laws of this state the money garnished in Minnesota is not exempt from execution. The amount in controversy being less than $100. two questions of law have been certified upon which the opinion of the supreme court is desired. Although this is an action in equity, we are only required to determine the questions so certified. Code, § 3173; Andrews v. Burdick, 62 Iowa, 714;S. C. 16 N. W. Rep. 275.

1. The first question certified is whether the court had “jurisdiction to restrain the defendants from proceeding in the courts of the state of Minnesota to subject the wages of Teager, exempt by the law of Iowa, to the paymentof this claim.” It will be observed that the question only refers to the defendants. We are not asked whether the courts of this state can enjoin the courts of Minnesota. Both the plaintiffs and the defendant Prescott are residents of this state, and amenable to its laws, and the former may invoke the aid of such laws, and the courts of this state, to prevent the latter from prosecuting an action in courts of another state “which will result in injury and fraud.” High. Inj. § 106. “In the exercise of this power courts of equity proceed, not upon any claim of right to interfere with or control the course of proceedings in other tribunals, or to prevent them from adjudicating on the rights of parties when drawn in controversy and duly presented for their...