40 S.W. 549 | Tex. App. | 1897
Opinion — This case is before us on agreed facts, about which there is no controversy, and we adopt said agreement as it appears on pages four, five and six of the transcript as this court's conclusions of fact.
But one question of law is presented for decision, and that is whether or not the earned compensation of a public officer is subject to garnishment.
In Bank v. Fink,
We think this reasoning applies with equal force to the case under consideration. Whether an officer's compensation be fees or salary, it is not collectible until the service is rendered; and if, when it falls due, it is subject to garnishment at the instance of creditors, the officer might not "be free from the cares of making provision for his own support and that of his family during the term of office," because as often as his compensation fell due it might by garnishment proceedings be applied to the demands of creditors.
We do not hold that an officer can not assign his earned fees or salary, because the right to do so would not produce the same results that would follow the enforced application of such compensation to the payment of his debts. If the money were in the treasury to pay the officer for the services rendered there would be no inducement to sell his claim for less than its face value; and if the money were not on hand to pay for the services rendered it might be necessary for the officer to discount his claim in order to get the means to support himself and family.
The ruling of the court below was in accordance with our views on the question discussed, and the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Writ of error refused.