Thomas v. Gibbons
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Jefferson District Court. The plaintiff, having obtained a judgment against the defendant, Gibbons, garnished the defendant, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Oo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson District Court. The plaintiff, having obtained a judgment against the defendant, Gibbons, garnished the defendant, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Oo. The answer óf the garnishee, upon being taken, showed that Gibbons at the time of the garnishment was employed by the garnishee as a brakeman, and that there was due him at the time of the garnishment, for wages then earned, $9.70, and that the garnishee owed him no other debt at that time, due or to become due. The answer, however, showed that Gibbons continued in the employ of the garnishee, and earned other wages…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
— The question presented arises upon the construction of section 2975 of the Code. The garnishee is re*51quired not to pay any debt dne or thereafter to become due. As to the meaning of the words “debt due” there can be no doubt. The question is as to the' meaning of the words “ debt thereafter to become due.” The plaintiff contends that the word debt, as used, is not restricted to a debt then exist-. ing, but may also mean any debt which may thereafter originate. Rut a debt which has yet to originate cannot properly, we think, be said to be a debt which is to become due. Of such a debt nothing…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Huntington v. RisdonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
3Cited by13 opinions
- Beeghly v. WilsonDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1957
- Bambrick v. Bambrick Bros. Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Dinkins v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Ames v. ChirurgSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Frieze v. PowellWashington Supreme Court · 1914
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.