| Show LUKE IS A LOSER IN THIS CASE Cannot Garnishee Wanes Wages of a Person When Latter is Out Of the State DECISION OF WIDE INTEREST I in TIui h b huel uel n a Uj A II decisIon lon the ot of garnishment proceedings proceeding neither the defendant against whom Judgment Is rendered nor nor the funds at to 10 be am wIthin tine the State ot of Utah HIS handed down by JUt ot of the court today and that matter r so 0 tar taras all as the Iho district court Is Ill case which is I entitled Walle r Bros Fyler company Charles Ita havens ns defendant and the Chicago Ie North Northwestern western Railway company was heard en cnn boat bano by the tour four judges ot of the Iho district court and tine the decision down b by Judge nile hIe Is con cola cone colaC e C In by a majority ot of the tho Judges ot of tIme roul count t TIme The decisIon holds holdA that where neither the tho defendant nor time the property or funds garnisheed are within this stAte the tha will not hold good The judgment of the court coart In Inthis InthIs this case Is therefore in III favor ot of th tIne Tine decision Is a 0 vor very Im one oils on and 1 Will no II doubt put pUl II a astop stop to 10 a 11 II I ot of garnishment pro ot of n a Ilku It at pears peal judgment was 1011 In tIne tho justice court ot of Kroeger Inn In this city In IDOL 1001 IThe fhe defendant Irl Ift the state MI at cured employment with the Chicago In the east ut Luke the for tor plaintIff served serell proceedings II 11 n the Ihl agent ot of this railroad company In tints till city and tied lIell up about 90 wages 1001 lung IlIg to 1111 Havens for services rendered for tor forthe the tho company compall iii tho cast Tine Tho companY appealed to the dl district court amid tIme d today ill ta Is favor faor ot of the road roud whIch IM hI tine Iho garnishee Time he which J is ot of great follows rollow Tine CM he lit inn this COM case I Is in II corpora not organized under ho laws or It this hl State tumi not a tIia Jt it hat nn an agent or at the Iho Morl common I called it II commercial agent who solicit hut for Cor it II to 10 be und r taken laken aol out by Unit corpora then lion milton Its lines lilies or of In other S states There 1111 no service upon tine IO IR as n 1 ot II the e x corn um rally any the ht e In per Ier performing forming his IliA there wIth sith huts payable lam In the or Of The ihl gair nt was served on thu of t the garnishee in III this state fhe cases CUlle the plaintiff relies And amid among others C It I V 1 H Itt i Sturm iiI 14 U S B nO and aM vs I is V 1 S huo been con conI I The Tho article In 61 Central Law J entItled Exit of the Doe Doc or of titus has hall b been en flied nil ns a 11 brier brief mail aiM considered It H he elementary from tine the cloud or of which have hao been around the th discussion of ca cases eft or of this character that thai tine tho I bo c within this Ihla santa or fr have property tint tho in 11 ino uter o ter to 10 II n foundation for tor II a against We e think the true Irue on principle Is ret et forth alter II a very ahlo ablo discussion U rus loli h h tine the supreme me court ourt or of appeals ot of West Wesl Virginia In tIme Iho ermo ot of nail flail road Co vs va 5 03 W a 40 iI 62 I In n fl A liS ve 0 think the tho d In tin th raM race brief extracts ls 01 which have havo been given Is unanswerable As IhrA d out omit the opinion ot cit the su eu court ot of tM the d States In C n It nI I 1 I 1 It II Co vs VI Strum IZ l U R H Is not net with th cbs so ex I lre ires lIed 2 W Va In that co CILO tho hI cage cago nork island Railway corn com compan pan puny tin In nn an Iowa court warm WAft n a corporatIon ot of III the Cf Iowa anti th service was wall made upon upun It In tins State or of it which I Is not the Iho fact in this case TM The argument iii favor or of time tho lol reached tJ I this court is Ie aho well In in time Iho opInion or Of the Iho supreme court nt It inn In the case or of Railway Co VI 11 41 11 1 Funs 33 j J ld lac The opiniOn or of own court the is IK conn In a 0 t tew lines In tho iii CB caces S of cr Lc Lesea ce vs 11 McCarthy 3 Cho decisIon is III to rest solely the Iho l than that thai the tho Inn In that case cas WI was operating its lis road roal anti doing s wIthin the thO Territory of Utah Such Hueh Is ha not th tIme fact In this ca case 1 Some have entertained Ih time that a mere debt Is or of so Intangible a 1 that It has hila not actual situ any anywhere where anti therefore can be b by fol following following lowing ann oce wino whet oes oc the debtor wherever r rhe lie he may KO go or of null all written In The ThO Injurious effect of at attempting tempting to round found a 0 upon that IhM notion nollon were not 1101 so eo when Ih the person only of the debtor was to tn he lou rol lie left lett his hI domicile and could coul 1 In any event be in 11 but one place nut al a time Under conditions ot of tho pea oat ent du day as AI the gar have what ore are called n agencies end ft In nearly every cery important Ill IllIn In the tho 11 States and frequently In FI E rope T To adopt no 11 doctrine which give tIne creditor the tho option of at selecting tiny eON forum m ho ha where such uch uchIn inn In agent c inid bo be found tO tl no Mw how r remote mole rem both credItor and ond would inflict rea hardship When the Involved are small th the hardship or of defending a 11 case In some remote region glon would tIO be great nM and In inmany IMn many II if nut not the of foul Amount to 10 n at practical d denial to he tie aued ot cit hi his day In court h ha bail hod fl a just Ie Cene or not It hm ot of hb rights or of Such n a doctrine would ha bo pernicious In the extreme inn In lilt lbs practical application as welt well II or vicious In principle pie To quote limo Iho language ot of nine rhe court or of with reference to In t moiler Itne unanImIty with this view I is state by omO CoarSe is III b by the or of reason nuon b by which It is IN vs va State it i N W V The majority ot of thu Iho concur In Inthis inthIs this opInion Judgment be tor or time the hu L Judge |
