Trottier v. Foley

• Decision Date: 07 January 1920
• Docket Number: No. 336.,336.
• Citation: 108 A. 498
• Parties: TROTTIER v. FOLEY.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

108 A. 498

TROTTIER

v. FOLEY.

No. 336.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 7, 1920.

Action by Arthur O. Trottier against Thomas Foley, wherein the Original Bradford Soap Works, Incorporated, was garnished, after hearing was charged as such, and brings error. Judgment charging the garnishee affirmed, and papers remitted.

Robinson & Robinson and David C. Adelman, all of Providence, for plaintiff.

John L. Curran, of Providence, for garnishee.

STEARNS, J. Petition for a writ of error by Original Bradford Soap Works, Incorporated, garnishee, to the district court of the Sixth judicial district. The writ was ordered and issued, and the case is now before this court on writ of error.

After the opinion (Trottier v. Foley, 43 R. I. ——, 107 Atl. 869, 108 Atl. 66) was given by this court, the justice of the district court amended and amplified his decision by filing a written decision in which the court noted its conclusion of law and fact. Gen. Laws 1909, c. 289, § 20.

The facts as thus disclosed are as follows:

The defendant, who was in the employ of the garnishee at a weekly wage of $24 on August 9, 1919, received a loan from his employer of $50, for which a receipt was given to the employer as follows:

"August 9, 1919. Received from Original Bradford Soap Works, Incorporated. $50.00, against which I pledge my wages until paid hack; they to retain $2 per week or more if they see fit. Thomas Foley."

On August 16th and August 23d the garnishee deducted $2 from the defendant's wages earned and due at those dates, and applied the $2 each time in part payment of the loan, and each time paid over the balance of the wages to the defendant.

August 25, 1919, the plaintiff, Trottier, brought suit against Foley on book account by writ returnable September 10th. Attachment of the personal estate of the defendant in the possession of the garnishee was made, and prior to the return day of the writ a writ of attachment of mesne process was also served on the garnishee. The case was not answered by the defendant, and thereafter, on motion and proof, judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $10.25 and costs. The garnishee was charged to the extent of $14 on the original attachment and to the extent of $18 on the attachment by mesne process.

On August 28th, the date of the service of the first writ of attachment, the amount of wages earned by and due to the defendant was $16; the amount unpaid on the loan and due to the garnishee was $46. On August 30th the garnishee deducted $2 from the amount of wages, $16, then due defendant, applied the same in part payment of the loan, and paid over to the defendant $14, the balance of his wages, and thereafter filed its answer of no funds in its hands belonging to defendant. On September 5th, the date of the service of the writ of mesne process upon the garnishee, the defendant had earned $20 in wages for the week preceding, and the amount of the loan thereon unpaid, was $44. On the day following. September 6th, the garnishee deducted $2 from the defendant's wages and applied the same in part payment of the loan, and paid over the balance of $18 to the defendant, and claimed a balance due to it on said loan of $42. Thereafter the garnishee filed its answer of no funds belonging to the defendant at the time of the service of the writ of mesne process. The treasurer of the corporation, garnishee, who signed the garnishee's answers, was summoned to testify in relation to the facts, and after a hearing the garnishee was charged as above stated.

The only question now raised by the garnishee is in regard to the right of the court to charge it as garnishee. The amount of the charge is not in issue. The claim of the garnishee is that, as ...