O'Connor v. Meehan
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In this action, brought in a justice’s court in St. Paul, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company was summoned as garnishee, and upon, the disclosure it appeared that defendant was a switchman in the service of the company, and that at the date of the service of the garnishment summons there was due on account of wages $136.20,. of which he claimed $20 as exempt, and that prior to such service,, defendant had, on July 25, 1890, assigned $85.36 of this amount to-one William…
Read the full summary
In this action, brought in a justice’s court in St. Paul, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company was summoned as garnishee, and upon, the disclosure it appeared that defendant was a switchman in the service of the company, and that at the date of the service of the garnishment summons there was due on account of wages $136.20,. of which he claimed $20 as exempt, and that prior to such service,, defendant had, on July 25, 1890, assigned $85.36 of this amount to-one William Evans, and on September 10, 1890, the balance of it to-other persons. Evans appeared as claimant, and filed a complaint'…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
An assignment of wages to be earned up to a certain date in the future, under an existing employment, if made in good faith and for a valuable consideration, is undoubtedly valid. If there be a subsisting engagement of employment, such an assignment will be valid, although the employment is for no definite period and may be terminated at any time by either party. It may be made as security, not only for present indebtedness, but also for future advances to be made to the assignor. If, however, it is a mere device to cover up the wages from the creditors of the assignor, it is, as to them,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Leitch v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Dickson v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Quigley v. WelterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Steinbach v. BrantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Leonard v. FarringtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.