Thomas v. Gibbons
| Decision Date | 19 April 1883 |
| Citation | 15 N.W. 593,61 Iowa 50 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. GIBBONS ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jefferson District Court.
THE plaintiff, having obtained a judgment against the defendant, Gibbons, garnished the defendant, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. The answer of the garnishee, upon being taken, showed that Gibbons at the time of the garnishment was employed by the garnishee as a brakeman, and that there was due him at the time of the garnishment, for wages then earned, $ 9.70, and that the garnishee owed him no other debt at that time, due or to become due. The answer, however, showed that Gibbons continued in the employ of the garnishee, and earned other wages after the garnishment, to the amount of about $ 144. The court refused to charge the garnishee for such other wages, and rendered judgment for only $ 9.70. The plaintiff appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Ratcliff & McCoy, for appellant.
J. R. McCrackin, for appellee.
The question presented arises upon the construction of section 2975 of the Code. The garnishee is required not to pay any debt due or thereafter to become due. As to the meaning of the words "debt due" there can be no doubt. The question is as to the meaning of the words "debt thereafter to become due." The plaintiff contends that the word debt, as used, is not restricted to a debt then existing, but may also mean any debt which may thereafter originate. But a debt which has yet to originate cannot properly, we think, be said to be a debt which is to become due. Of such a debt nothing can properly be predicated. The words "to become due" are set over against the word "due," and like it are used to describe the word debt, which must mean a subsisting debt. Huntington v. Risdon, 43 Iowa 517. We think that the court correctly refused to charge the garnishee for a debt which had no existence at the time of the garnishment.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beeghly v. Wilson
...N.W. 518. This is true even though the statutes relating to garnishment purport to provide for amounts "to become due." Thomas v. Gibbons, 1883, 61 Iowa 50, 15 N.W. 593. In United States v. Long Island Drug Co., 2 Cir., 1940, 115 F.2d 983, the Court refused to give the Government a judgment......
-
Bambrick v. Bambrick Brothers Construction Co.
... ... Jesse A. McDonald, ... ... Judgment reversed and cause remanded ... T. J ... Rowe, Henry Rowe and Thomas J. Rowe, Jr., for appellant ... (1) The ... garnishee should have been discharged after its motion to ... strike out parts of ... rule that a creditor will be denied the right to attach by ... garnishment the unearned salary of his debtor. [Thomas v ... Gibbons, 15 N.W. 593; Reinhart v. Empire Soap ... Co., 33 Mo.App. 24.] ... The ... garnishee's answer in this case states a monthly ... ...
-
Ames v. Chirurg
... ... coming into his hands after the garnishment is run. See, ... also, Morris v. Union Pacific R. R., 56 Iowa 135, 8 ... N.W. 804; Thomas v. Gibbons, 61 Iowa 50, 15 N.W ... 593. The statutes referred to have materially modified the ... law as it appeared in the Code of 1873. Compare ... ...
-
Bambrick v. Bambrick Bros. Const. Co.
...established rule that a creditor will be denied the right to attach by garnishment the unearned salary of his debtor. Thomas v. Gibbons, 61 Iowa, 50, 15 N. W. 593; Reinhart v. Empire Soap Co., 33 Mo. App. The garnishee's answer in this case states a monthly hiring of the defendant by the ga......