DEER & THOMPSON vs. TIMOTHY LUBEY AND HIS GARNISHEE, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DEER & THOMPSON vs. TIMOTHY LUBEY AND HIS GARNISHEE, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. At Law. No. 2736. The District of Columbia cannot he charged as garnishee upon process of attachment on account of the salary due from it to an officer of the District government. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. On the 14th day of December, 1866, the appellants, Derr & Thompson, recovered a judgment in the supreme court of the District of Columbia against the said Timothy Lubey for the sum of $292.75, with interest from June 15,1866, and costs of suit. Execution was issued on said judgment, which was returned nulla bona. The judgment having become dormant, the same was, on the 13 th day of June, 1871, revived by scire facias. Lubey, the judgment-debtor, having been appointed water-registrar under the government of the District of Columbia,, an attachment was taken out against his salary as such officer, in pursuance of the Maryland attachment-act of 1715, Chap. XL., sec. 7, (Thompson’s Digest, 94,) and laid in the hands of the governor of said District, November 15, 1871. On the 2d of January, 1872, the answer of the District of Columbia was filed, admitting that the sum of $500 had been paid to Lubey, the judgment-debtor, after the attachment was laid, and setting up that the salary of Lubey, because he is an officer of said municipal corporation, is not subject to attachment. Whereupon, the counsel of Derr & Thompson moved the court for judgment of condemnation against the said body-corporate on said answer. The court, however, overruled the motion for judgment. And this appeal is taken to. reverse that decision. Robert Leech and Enoch Totten, for the plaintiff, relied on the following points: 1. The District of Columbia is a body-corporate for municipal purposes, capable of contracting and being contracted with, of suing and being sued, and of pleading and being impleaded in the courts. 2. The said “body-corporate for municipal purposes” can lawfully be charged as garnishee on account of salary due to one of its officers. Act of Congress approved February 21,1871, entitled “An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia,” 16 Stat., 419 ; Bray vs. Wallingford, 20 Conn., 416; Whidden vs. Drake, 5 New Hampshire, 13. William A. Look, for the District of Columbia, cited 8 Maryland R., 95; 4 How., 20. [MAJORITY] By the Court : The decision of the court below must be affirmed. We are all of the opinion that process of attachment will not lie to garnishee the salaries due from the District government to its officers, on the ground of public convenience and necessity.