Porter v. Navin

Decided November 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1889-11-15

John A. Williams, Judge. Porter sued Navin before a justice of the peace for a sum due on an account, and obtained an order of attachment embracing a garnishment clause. Reed and Winchester, as trustees of the Little Rock, Mississippi and Texas Railway, were summoned as garnishees, and answered, admitting that they were indebted to the defendant in the sum of $37.25. The defendant claimed the amount of their indebtedness as exempt.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1921

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-11-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Wages : Exemption. Section 3244 of Mansf. Dig., in relation to the exemption of laborers’s wages from seizure by garnishment, requires of the defendant a sworn statement to the effect that the wages claimed as exempt are less than the value of the personal property exempt to him under the Constitution. The statute thus manifests the intent to limit the right of exemption to those entitled to exemption under the Constitution. But only residents are entitled to the privilege under the Constitution. The sworn statement of the defendant was, therefore, defective in failing to state that the defendant was a resident of this State. Guise v. State, 41 Ark., 249; Donnelly v. Wheeler, 34 Ark., 111.

¶2Reverse and remand for further proceedings.