(4) Garnishment Case Summaries
In searching for the word "garnishment" in the findlaw.com database of Supreme Court decisions, I found 53 opinions that were written prior to 1935. I was interested in seeing how garnishment proceedings affected wages before the income tax was perverted into a general labor tax starting with the Social Security Act of 1935. I found that the bulk of the cases dealt with corporate and quasi-corporate activity. Only 5 of the 53 cases dealt with wage garnishment, and no13th amendment challenge was made in any of the 5 cases that pertained to wage (labor) garnishment. Also, no wage garnishment proceedings can be found in the Supreme Court opinions of the time prior to 1935 that enforced alimony, child support, or tax collections. The debts involved were debts that were voluntarily entered into by the parties involved; they were not servitudes forced on people by statutory enactments that were enforced through administrative actions or court orders.
The conclusion is simple. The system of wage garnishment we have today had no common law heritage from older times any more than the support obligation, as imposed upon labor, had a common law heritage from older times. Most of the older garnishment cases deal with far greater wealth than the common worker back then would ever see. The wage garnishment system we have today is a development of recent times since the New Deal began in the 1930's. **************************************************************************************************************************
1. BALTIMORE & O R. CO. v. HOSTETTER, 240 U.S. 620 (1916): Wage garnishment against employer was upheld in this case. No 13th or 14th amendment challenges were made, and the "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution ruled not violated in this instance. Garnishment was for $38.40. Estimating $600/year as the rough income for this type of wage earner back then, this would equate to 6.4% of this particular wage earner's income for one year, and no income tax was imposed upon this worker's wages.
2. WABASH R CO v. TOURVILLE, 179 U.S. 322 (1900): Here is the gist of the case as stated by the court: "The plaintiff in error is a consolidated railway corporation, separately organized under the laws of Illinois and Missouri. It was indebted to the defendant in error, whom we shall designate by his name, Tourville, for work and labor performed in St. Louis, Missouri, in the sum of $81.98. Tourville was indebted on a promissory note for $132 to one Flannigan, who lived in East St. Louis, state of Illinois." It took awhile, but Tourville's right to his $81 in wages was upheld. Interestingly, this case showed that the state of Missouri had a law at the time that barred wage attachment proceedings against workers who were the head of a household. This shows that the right to free labor was respected as a sacred right by the lawmakers of the time. It also shows that the economic support of the family unit was of greater importance than gathering taxes.
3. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. v. HALL, 229 U.S. 511 (1913): This case opened by stating: "Hall, a resident of Douglas county, Nebraska, was employed by the railroad as switchman in its yards in Omaha. His wages were exempt from garnishment by the laws of Nebraska. In July, 1907, he was insolvent, and [229 U.S. 511, 512] in that month, while temporarily in the state of Iowa, two proceedings were instituted against him, in which he was personally served, and the railroad, which owed him $122 as wages, was garnisheed. In one of these cases Rawles sued on an open account for $54.20, the railroad being required to answer on August 10th. In the other, Torrey, holding a judgment for $22.40, rendered in 1894, served a summons of garnishment on the railroad, requiring it to answer on August 27, 1907." Nebraska was another state that exempted the wages of head of households from garnishment at the time. Bankruptcy law protected Hall's wages from garnishment in this case.
4. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. v. STURM, 174 U.S. 710 (1899): The case opens: "The defendant in error brought an action against the plain- [174 U.S. 710, 711] tiff in error in justice's court of Belleville, Republic county, Kansas, for the sum of $140, for wages due. Judgment was rendered for him in the sum of $140, and interest and costs." Judgement reversed. Sturm had to pay his debt.
5. ENDICOTT-JOHNSON CORPORATION v. ENCYCLOPEDIA PRESS, 266 U.S. 285 (1924): The gist of the case: "The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., having duly recovered a judgment in the Supreme Court of New York against an employee of the Endicott Corporation receiving weekly wages of more than twelve dollars, was awarded, ex parte, under this section of the Code, an execution against his wages, directing the Corporation to pay over each week ten per centum thereof until the execution was satisfied. The Corporation failed and refused so to do, and continued to pay the employee his entire weekly wages as they became due." Court refuted due process argument. Garnishment upheld. No 13th amendment challenge made. The law at this time only allowed a garnishment of 10% of wages and the income tax did not tax wages then.
6. SNIADACH v. FAMILY FINANCE CORP., 395 U.S. 337 (1969): Here's the gist of the case: "Respondents instituted a garnishment action against petitioner as defendant and Miller Harris Instrument Co., her employer, as garnishee. The complaint alleged [395 U.S. 337, 338] a claim of $420 on a promissory note. The garnishee filed its answer stating it had wages of $63.18 under its control earned by petitioner and unpaid, and that it would pay one-half to petitioner as a subsistence allowance and hold the other half subject to the order of the court." Wisconsin statute that allowed prejudgement garnishment held to violate the due process of the 14thamendment. Her property (wages) were taken without a chance to be heard. Justice Harlan stated: "The ‘property' of which petitioner has been deprived is the use of the garnished portion of her wages during the interim period between the garnishment and the culmination of the main suit." However, consider this: "There are other decisions to the effect that one may be deprived of property by summary administrative action taken before hearing when such action is essential to protect a vital governmental interest. See, e. g., Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U.S. 594 (1950); Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245 (1947); Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944); North Amer. Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908)." Justice Black, in his dissenting opinion stated: "The Supreme Court of Wisconsin properly pointed out: ‘The ability to place a lien upon a man's property, such as to temporarily deprive him of its beneficial use, without any judicial determination of probable cause dates back not only to medieval England but also to Roman times.' 37 Wis. 2d, at 171, 154 N. W. 2d, at 264." Of course, both Justice Black and the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not point out that slavery was an institution in medieval England and the Roman Empire.
7. KOKOSZKA v. BELFORD, 417 U.S. 642 (1974): "The provision in the Consumer Credit Protection Act limiting wage garnishment to no more than 25% of a person's aggregate "disposable earnings" for any pay period does not apply to a tax refund, since the statutory terms "earnings" and "disposable earnings" are confined to periodic payments of compensation and do not pertain to every asset that is traceable in some way to such compensation. Hence, the Act does not limit the bankruptcy trustee's right to treat the tax refund as property of the bankrupt's estate."