Wells v. The East Tenn.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1885
• Parties: Wells. vs. The East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

74 Ga. 548

Wells. vs. The East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

FEBRUARY TERM, 1885.

Garnishment. Debtor and Creditor. Attachment. Railroad Corporations. Jurisdiction. Before Judge Branham. Whitfield Superior Court. October Term, 1884.

Reported in the decision.

McCamy & Walker, for plaintiff in error.

Sam. P. Maddox; Bacon & Rutherford, by brief, for defendant.

Hall, Justice.

The East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company was served with summons of garnishment to answer what it was indebted to, or what effects it had belonging to, the defendant in an attachment in a justice's court in Whitfield county. The summons was served on the agent of the company residing and attending to its business at one of its stations in said county of Whitfield. The corporation acts under charters from each of the states through which its road passes and in which it transacts business. The answer to this summons disclosed this fact, and that it was indebted to the defendant in attachment for wages as a day laborer for services which were performed for it in the state of Tennessee, where he resided and where it conducted its operations; that by the laws of that state the amount of wages due to him was exempt from the payment of his debts; that he had sued it for this amount in the courts of Tennessee, and notwithstanding the garnishment was insisted on in defence of this action, judgment had been given against it, which it would be compelled to satisfy. The Georgia agent answered the garnishment served on him, and denied any indebtedness whatever in this state to the defendant, or that he had ever rendered any services to the corporation here, or that he had any effects, etc. On this answer, the justice rendered judgment against the garnishee, which was carried to the superior court bywrit of certiorari; and upon the hearing of that writ, it was sustained, and the cause remanded with instructions to the justice\'s court.

The judgment remanding it is the error assigned. The counsel for the plaintiff in attachment contends that this case is controlled by Kyle & Co. vs. Montgomery et al., decided at the September term, 18S4, of this court, ^* in which it was held that the property of a nonresident debtor found in this state was subject to attachment, and that the debtor was not entitled to claim the exemption of the property which was allowed cither by the laws of this state or that in which he had his domicile, from the...