Tourville v. Wabash R. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1899
• Citation: 148 Mo. 614,50 S.W. 300
• Parties: TOURVILLE v. WABASH R. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

50 S.W. 300

148 Mo. 614

TOURVILLE v. WABASH R. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 21, 1899.

APPEAL — REMAND — PROCEEDINGS IN LOWER COURT — GARNISHMENT OF JUDGMENT DEBT.

1. A judgment of the St. Louis court of appeals reversing the judgment of the circuit court of St. Louis, and remanding the cause, with directions to enter judgment for a certain sum, is final; and the latter court must enter the judgment as directed, and cannot consider the effect of proceedings commenced against plaintiff after the remand, but before the mandate reached the lower court, in which proceedings the debt sued for is garnished.

2. After final judgment has been rendered in an action, the debt is not subject to garnishment in another state.

In banc. Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; James E. Withrow, Judge.

Action by Peter Tourville against the Wabash Railroad Company. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. S. Grover, for appellant. Virgil Rule, for respondent.

BRACE, J.

The defendant is a consolidated railway corporation, separately organized under the laws of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri; having business offices and agents in all of these states. On the 3d of June, 1891, the plaintiff, Tourville, a resident of the state of Missouri, being indebted on a promissory note to one Flannigan, a resident of the state of Illinois, the said Flannigan instituted a suit against him, by attachment, for the recovery of such debt, before a justice of the peace in that state, in which on the same day the defendant railroad company was served with notice of garnishment in that state, under the laws thereof. Afterwards, on the 10th of June, 1891, the plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendant railroad company, before a justice of the peace in the city of St. Louis, to recover the sum of $81.98, on account of wages due him, not subject to execution, attachment, or garnishment, under the laws of Missouri. The defendant made default, and judgment was rendered against it in the justice's court, and thereupon the defendant took an appeal to the St. Louis city circuit court. In the meantime the attachment suit in Illinois having proceeded to judgment on the 25th of July, 1891, in the justice's court, against the railroad company, for the sum of $21.80 and costs, on its answer admitting its indebtedness to Tourville on account of the wages aforesaid, in the sum of $71.83, but pleading the exemption of the sum from garnishment under the laws of Illinois and Missouri; and that judgment having been affirmed, on defendant's appeal, by the city court of East St. Louis, in that state, on the 21st of December, 1891, and the railroad company having paid that judgment, amounting to the sum of $43.38, on the 6th of January, 1892, — when this case came on for trial in the St. Louis circuit court, on the 23d of January, 1892, the defendant railroad company interposed that judgment as a defense in part to plaintiff's action; and the circuit court allowed the same as a credit on plaintiff's demand, and rendered judgment in his favor against the defendant for the sum of $38.60, the balance of the amount sued for. From this judgment both parties appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, when, on the 26th of March, 1895, the judgment was reversed, "and the cause remanded, with directions to the trial court to enter judgment for plaintiff for $81, the amount sued for." 61 Mo. App. 527. Afterwards, on the 1st of April, 1895, and before the mandate of the court of appeals reached the circuit court, Flannigan instituted another suit by attachment against the plaintiff, before a justice of the peace in the state of Illinois, to recover the balance due on his debt, in which, on the same day, the defendant was served with notice of garnishment. The writ in this proceeding was returnable April 27, 1895, and while the same was pending in Illinois the mandate of the St. Louis court of appeals in this case reached the St. Louis city circuit court; and on the 3d day of May, 1895, the defendant offered to said court, as evidence in the case, the affidavit, attachment bond, and writ, with the service thereof upon the defendant as garnishee, in the said second attachment suit so instituted by the said Flannigan against the plaintiff on the 1st day of April, 1895, in the state of Illinois. To the admission of this evidence the plaintiff objected, and his objection was sustained. The defendant excepted, and thereupon the court entered judgment in his favor against the defendant for the said sum of $81, in pursuance of the mandate of the St. Louis court of appeals. The defendant again excepted, and on the same day filed its motion to set aside the judgment, and for new trial, on the ground that by entering said judgment and rejecting said evidence the court refused to give full faith and credit to a valid proceeding instituted against the defendant in a sister state, in violation of section 1, art. 4, of the constitution of the United States; which motion was overruled on the 10th day of June, 1895, and the defendant excepted. On the 25th of June, 1895, defendant filed its motion to modify the judgment, and in support of said motion, and as a part thereof, on the 5th day of July, 1895, filed a transcript and copy of the proceedings in the second attachment suit in Illinois, showing judgment therein against Tourville in favor of Flannigan for $139.30 on the 15th of May, 1895, and judgment in his favor against the railroad company, as garnishee, for $81.98, on the 14th of June, 1895; and by reason thereof the defendant, in its motion, asked that the judgment in this case be modified by deducting therefrom the amount of said Illinois judgment. On the 5th of July, 1895, plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendant's bill of exceptions from the files, and on the 11th day of October, 1895, caused execution to be issued upon the judgment. On the 12th of October, 1895, the defendant filed its motion to quash said execution, assigning the same reasons therefor as in its former motions; and on the 4th of December, 1895, the court overruled defendant's motions to modify the judgment and quash the execution, to which action of the court defendant excepted, and thereafter, in due...