OCR Text |
Show COURTS ARE' WITHOUT POWER JUSTICE COURTS, HAVE BEEN ACTING WITHOUT AUTHORITY. , ' I They Are Not Allowed to Enter Judgments Judg-ments on Writs of Garnishment ' Important Decision, According to a recent decision by Judges Lewis and Armstrong, in the Third district court, the justice of the peace courts of the state of Utah have been violating the state laws and over- istepping their jurisdiction by causing judgments in be entered upon which j .levies were made and money paid on writs of garnishment. Now pending in the court, of Justice of the Peace Stanley A. Hanks Is a case which will no doubt bring to ; light the illegal actions on the part of tho justices and which will undoubtedly undoubted-ly cause the present legislature to enact en-act a law fully covering the matter. In fact.' there Is a bill now before the senate dealing with tho matter. Some timo ago A. Madison & Sons company of Murray brought an action ac-tion against Mr3. Eliza Thomas of Murray, in the justice court of that place to recover $255.60. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum asked. The plaintiffs then served an execution and writ of garnishment gar-nishment on the ZIon Savings Bank and Trust company of this city. Tho bank answered the writ tf garnish-; ment. showing that it held on deposit ; in the name of Mrs. Eliza Thomas ' $255.55. Judgment was then entered I against the bank or garnishee, for the amount stated in the answer to the writ of garnishment. An execution was then Issued by 1 the Murray court and given to the sheriff, who served It on the bank, and ' the money was turned over to the sheriff to be given to the plaintiff in the case, A. Madison & Sons company. After this procedure, Mrs. Thomas employed attorneys and filed in Jup- tice Hanks court a suit against the i Zlon"s Savings and Trust company, ! alleging that it had no right to turn over the money left in its trust on a writ of garnishment issued from a Justice Jus-tice court, according to the laws of the state, which read that no court other than a court of record has Jurisdiction Juris-diction to caused to be levied nor Jurisdiction Jur-isdiction to enter judgment as was ! done in this case. ! Judge Lewis recently held that garnishment gar-nishment upon an execution cannot issue out of a judgment in a justice of the peace court. In a Justice court . garnishment can only issue upon an ! attachment before judgment, he held. I This law Is plainly set forth in sec- i tions 3090 and 3112 of the Revised , Statutes. According to the law, as stated in those two sections, only a court of record rec-ord may issue a writ of garnishment on an execution. Justice courts, or the city court, are not courts of. record, rec-ord, fhus It is only the higher courts that have such jurisdiction. According to the law, any corporation corpora-tion or business firm which pays out money on the order of a justice court may be held answerable by the parties part-ies affected. j For a number of years justice court have been causing collections on writs of garnishment based on executions, exe-cutions, and it is only within a few, weeks that. thiR procedure has been shown to be contrary to law. ( The discovery that JurMcph of the peace have been exceeding their Jurisdiction Jur-isdiction hat caused considerable comment among attorneys, and will come a a surprise to many concernK which have paid money on garnishments garnish-ments issued by Justice courts, as they hae done so without legal right, and at the risk of being sued for the amount by tho parties whom the garnishments gar-nishments might affect. |