Christ v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
Court of Appeals of Kansas
Appeal from the Jackson Oírcru.it Court. — Hon. Tubneb A. Hill, Judge. The answer of the railroad company, garnishee, sets forth that the wages, sought to be sequestered by this proceeding, were earned in September, 1887, in the state of Texas, and were by contract payable there monthly, and were exempt by the laws of Texas from garnishment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jackson Oírcru.it Court. — Hon. Tubneb A. Hill, Judge. The answer of the railroad company, garnishee, sets forth that the wages, sought to be sequestered by this proceeding, were earned in September, 1887, in the state of Texas, and were by contract payable there monthly, and were exempt by the laws of Texas from garnishment. The sworn answer of the garnishee makes a prima facie case and as there was no evidence produced by plaintiff overthrowing it, it must stand as true. Holton v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 151. Aside from this prima facie case, it must be presumed that the debt…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
— As there was no bill of exceptions filed in this case our examination must be confined to the record proper. The several questions which the defendant has discussed in its brief do not arise on the record before us, and therefore can not be considered.
The defendant’s answer to the interrogatories admitted an indebtedness, and then separately and distinctly pleaded facts from which the law would conclude non-liability to the process of garnishment.
The grounds of the defendant’s non-liability so set forth are controverted by the denial of the plaintiff and *665thus were presented the issues of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Freeman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Huxley v. HarroldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- O'Neil v. City of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- Roethlisberger & Gerber v. CaspariMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Irvine v. KarnesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894