Farley, Smith & Co. v. Dowe
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before Hon. J. Q. Smith. Before the passage of the act of the 10th of October, 1868, for the relief of laborers and employees, the appellants obtained judgment against McDonald. Dowe was afterwards summoned, by writ of garnishment, to answer what he was indebted to said McDonald.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Circuit Court of Montgomery. Tried before Hon. J. Q. Smith. Before the passage of the act of the 10th of October, 1868, for the relief of laborers and employees, the appellants obtained judgment against McDonald. Dowe was afterwards summoned, by writ of garnishment, to answer what he was indebted to said McDonald. At the January term, 1870, Dowe answered, admitting indebtedness in the sum of $L15 80, but without stating how the indebtedness arose; thereupon McDonald made affidavit that the amount due him from Dowe was due him as a laborer or employee for said Dowe during two…
1Opinion of the CourtB. F. Saffold, J.
The question at issue between the *329parties is, whether the wages of a clerk in a store is subject to garnishment in the hands of his employer.
An act of the legislature, approved October 10, 1868, provides that the wages of laborers and employees shall not be subject to garnishment or attachment, except for public dues.
This act is not unconstitutional on the ground, of embracing more subjects than one, and was in force at the time of the trial. A clerk employed as salesman is within its provisions.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- State v. AckermanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1899