Nix v. Goodhill
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Delaware District Court. — Hon. J. J. Ney, Judge. Plaintiff is a judgment debtor of the defendant. He was an employe of the Illinois Central Railway Company, and the head of a family. On the twenty-first day of January, 1894; there was due him from the company his wages for the forty days next preceding, which, because his personal earnings, were exempt from execution.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Delaware District Court. — Hon. J. J. Ney, Judge. Plaintiff is a judgment debtor of the defendant. He was an employe of the Illinois Central Railway Company, and the head of a family. On the twenty-first day of January, 1894; there was due him from the company his wages for the forty days next preceding, which, because his personal earnings, were exempt from execution. The defendant took execution on his judgment, and garnished the 'company, and on the day that the garnishment was returnable the proceeding was dismissed. Plaintiff brings this action, alleging: “That the said…
1Opinion of the CourtGranger, J.
The only question in the case arises on the demurrer to the petition. Because of a growing practice in the state, the question is an important one. By observing the averments of the petition it will be seen that the action is for an abuse of legal process in a *284civil suit, the defendant having directed the sheriff tc serve the execution by a garnishment of the company for a debt due for personal earnings exempt from execution. It is a rule of law of very general recognition that an action will lie for an abuse of such process. In Cooley on Torts (2d Ed., p. 220), it is said: “If process,…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Spellens v. SpellensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Schaefer v. O. K. Tool Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Tranchina v. ArcinasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Dickerson v. SchwabacherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Sarvold v. DodsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1976
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.