TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smith v. Endicott-Johnson Corporation

William H. Smith, Respondent, v. Endicott-Johnson Corporation, Appellant

Smith v. Endicott-Johnson Corp., 138 N.E. 474 (N.Y. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1922
Citations
138 N.E. 474234 N.Y. 6281922 N.Y. LEXIS 827
Headnotes
Garnishment — constitutional law — validity of statute permitting gar~ nishment of wages.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 13, 1922, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover judgment from the defendant for the sum of $97.87, with interest and costs, claimed to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff in three separate causes of action, because of failure of the defendant to pay over to the sheriff of Broome county ten per cent of the wages of three judgment debtors as directed-in garnishee executions issued under provisions of section 1391 of the Code of Civil Procedure and served upon the defendant in respect to judgments recovered against them. The defenses as to all three causes of action set up by the answer are: That the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that the papers upon which the garnishee executions were issued were insufficient; that the law is unauthorized and in derogation of the common law; that the law is void as against public policy; that the law is unconstitutional in that it deprives the judgment debtor of his property without due process of law and without notice; that the law is subversive of contracts between employer and employee, and is inequitable in its operation.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with, costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1924: 11927: 11932: 11954: 11982: 11990: 119242026peak 1924 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Clients' Security Fund v. Goldome148 Misc. 2d 157 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1990)
  2. Coller v. Sheffield Farms Co.129 Misc. 600 (1927)
  3. Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Smith266 U.S. 291 (1924)
  4. Russ v. Bourn205 Misc. 88 (1954)
  5. Rickey v. Slingerland143 Misc. 583 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1932)
  6. National Surety Corp. v. R. H. Macy & Co.116 Misc. 2d 780 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982)

Most recent

  1. Clients' Security Fund v. Goldome148 Misc. 2d 157 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1990)
  2. National Surety Corp. v. R. H. Macy & Co.116 Misc. 2d 780 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982)
  3. Russ v. Bourn205 Misc. 88 (1954)
  4. Rickey v. Slingerland143 Misc. 583 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1932)
  5. Coller v. Sheffield Farms Co.129 Misc. 600 (1927)
  6. Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Smith266 U.S. 291 (1924)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list