White v. Hobart

• Decision Date: 08 May 1890
• Citation: 90 Ala. 368,7 So. 807
• Parties: WHITE v. HOBART.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

7 So. 807

90 Ala. 368

WHITE v. HOBART.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 8, 1890

Appeal from city court of Decatur.

Kyle & Skeggs, for appellant.

Wert & Speake, for appellee.

STONE C.J.

M. S Hobart instituted suit before a justice of the peace against W. L. White for a sum less than $100, and on April 6, 1889 L. M. Falk was summoned as a garnishee to answer as to his indebtedness to W. L. White. On May 20, 1889, he answered denying any indebtedness to White, "but will be indebted in future in the sum of about one hundred and eleven 50-100 dollars when he [White] completes may [Falk's] house according to contract." There was no further answer by the garnishee, and no contest of his answer. The record is silent whether Falk's house has ever been completed according to contract, and it is not shown what it lacks of completion. After garnishment served, but before answer filed, White interposed a claim to Falk's indebtedness to him as exempt to him under the laws of Alabama. This claim was sworn to and filed April 25, 1889, and set forth, among other essentials to such claim, that White "is a resident citizen of Morgan county, Ala." The claim includes other items, not included in this controversy, the aggregate being less than $1,000. This claim of exemption was controverted by Mrs. Hobart, through her agent, on April 29, 1889, he denying that the said White was a resident citizen of Alabama. An issue was thereupon made up before the justice of the peace to determine whether or not White was a resident of Alabama, and the issue was submitted to a jury, who, by their verdict, found that White was not a resident citizen of Alabama, and therefore found the issue in favor of the plaintiff, Mrs. Hobart. The justice thereupon adjudged that said property "be held subject to the payment of the judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant, for which let execution issue. And the garnishee in this case, L. M. Falk, having answered, and admitting that he will be owing the defendant $111 when he shall have completed the job of work on hands for him, judgment is hereby rendered against said garnishee for $54.48 principal, and for $7 costs, but execution is stayed until said job is finished." From this judgment White, the defendant, appealed to the city court. When the case reached the city court, and at the first term thereof, the defendant, White, filed a motion as follows: "Now comes the defendant, and moves the court to order the garnishee in this cause, L. M. Falk, to pay over the money in this cause, detained under the writ of garnishment, to the defendant." At the same time the garnishee moved for his discharge on several grounds, among them that the "contract [work] not having been completed at that time, no judgment could have been rendered against him in the lower [justice's] court." Thereupon the issue whether or not White was a resident of Alabama was tried before the city court, a jury being waived. After hearing the testimony, the following judgment was rendered by the city court: "The court is of opinion that defendant had not at the time of the service of said garnishment acquired a residence entitling him to the benefits of the...