West v. Standard Accident Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 November 1932
• Docket Number: 9211.
• Parties: WEST v. STANDARD ACCIDENT INS. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

166 S.E. 761

176 Ga. 54

WEST v. STANDARD ACCIDENT INS. CO.

No. 9211.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 21, 1932

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In garnishment proceeding, bill of exceptions assigning error upon judgments overruling demurrer and traverse to answer but not containing exception to any final judgment held prematurely brought requiring dismissal of writ of error.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Garnishment proceeding by T. B. West, Jr., against the Standard Accident Insurance Company. To review judgments overruling his demurrer and finding against his traverse to the garnishee's answer, plaintiff brings error.

Writ of error dismissed.

Eldon Haldane, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Harry L. Greene, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

RUSSELL C.J.

The plaintiff as the transferee of an execution against T. B West, Sr., for alimony, in the statutory proceeding provided by law procured the issuance of a summons of garnishment which was served upon the Standard Accident Insurance Company. That company filed an answer admitting an indebtedness to West, but alleged that the funds in its hands were the weekly payments awarded by the State Industrial Commission as compensation to West, and therefore were not subject to process of garnishment. The plaintiff filed the following demurrer: "1. That part of garnishee's answer setting up section 22 of the Georgia workmen's compensation act (Ga. L. 1920, pp. 167, 179) as a bar to the plaintiff's right to maintain his garnishment suit should be stricken for the following reasons: Section 22 of said act *** is void as being contrary to public policy. 2. Said section of said act is void and unconstitutional, for the reason that it is violative of Amendment 14, § 1, of the Constitution of the United States, in that it deprives plaintiff and others of due process of law, and in that it unlawfully restricts the right to contract, in violation of Amendment 14, § 1, of the Constitution of the United States." The plaintiff filed also the following traverse of the answer of the garnishee: "Garnishee knew that plaintiff's suit was based on an execution for alimony, and section 22 of the Georgia workmen's compensation act did not contemplate the barring of the right of garnishment to the holder of an execution for alimony. Said section is void as being contrary to the public policy of this...