Sniadach v Family Finance Corp Brief and Appendix for Respondent

    IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF TIE UNITED STATES
O cto b e r  T e r m ,  1968 No. 130

CHRISTINE SNIADACH,

- v -
P e t it io n e r ,

F A M IL Y  FIN A N C E  C O R P O R A T IO N  OF B A Y  
VIEW  and M IL L E R  HARRIS IN STRU M EN T 
C O M P A N Y .

ON W RIT OF C E R T IO R A R I TO  THE 
S U P R E M E  C O U R T OF WISCONSIN

B R IE F  AND A P P E N D IX  F O R  RE SPO N DEN T

SH ELDON  D. FR AN K  
135 W est W ells  S treet 
M ilw au kee , W is c o n s in  53203

SIDNEY G RAY 
16 1  W est  W is c o n s in  Avenue 
M ilw aukee , W is c o n s in  53203 

O f C ou nse l

A tto rn e y s  f o r  R espondent



1

INDEX

OPINIONS B E L O W .......................................................... 1

JU RISDICTION .................................................................  2

QU ESTION  P R E S E N T E D ........................................... 2

C O N S T IT U T IO N A L  AND S T A T U T O R Y  
PROVISIONS IN V O L V E D ........................................  2

S T A T E M E N T .................................................................... 3

HOW THE F E D E R A L  QUESTION WAS 
RAISED AND D ECID E D  B E L O W .......................  3

S U M M A R Y  OF A R G U M E N T ...................................... 5

A R G U M E N T :

I. P R E -J U D G M E N T  GARNISHM ENT 
AS A  M EAN S OF C O L L E C T IN G
JUST D E B T S ................................................ 5

II. GARNISHM ENT IS A L E G IS L A T IV E
PR O C ESS NOT JU D IC IA R Y .................. 7

CO N CLU SIO N .................................................................... 14

T A B L E  O F  AU TH O RITIES

C a se s :

Boynton Cab Co. v. G iese ,
237 W is .  237, 296 N .W .  630 (1941 )...............  i o

P a g e



11

B y rd  v. R e c to r ,
112 W. Va. 192, 163 S .E .  845 (1 9 3 2 )____  4 ,1 2

P a g e

C offin  B r o s .  & Co. v. Bennett,
277 US 2 9, 72 L. Ed. 768, 48 S. Ct. 422 
(1 9 2 7 ) .............................................................................. 8

E a g le s o n  v. Rubin,
(S. C. , Ida. , 1909) 100 P  7 6 5 ............................ 11

G rannis v. O rdean ,
34 S. C. 7 7 9 .................................................................  12

H e n d erson  v. Mutual F e r t i l i z e r  C om pany,
(S. C. , Ga. , 1920) 104 S .E .  2 2 9 ....................  11

M a n u fa c tu r e r 's  F re ig h t  F o r w a r d in g  C o . ,
294 M ich . 57, 292 N. W. 678, 680
(1 9 4 0 ) .............................................................................. 7

M cln n es  v. M cK ay ,
141 A. 699 (1 9 2 8 ) .......................................................  13

P h il l ip s  v. C o m m is s io n e r  o f  In ternal 
R evenue , 283 US 589, 51 S. Ct. 608,
75 L. Ed. 1289 (1 9 3 0 ) .............................................  10

P i e r c e  v. C h ica go  & N o rth w e s te rn  
R a ilw ay  Co. , 36 W is .  283, 2 8 7 ....................... 11

S c h o lb e r g  v. Itnyre,
264 W is . 211, 58 N. W. 2d 648 (1952 )..........  7

S k a leck i  v. F r e d e r i c k ,
31 W is .  2d 496, 502 (1966 )................................. 8



Ill

Standard O il v. S u p e r io r  Court o f  
New C a st le  County, 44 Del. 538,
69 S. Ct. 7 3 8 .................................................................  8

United States v. D epartm ent of 
C o r r e c t io n s  o f  State o f  D e law a re ,
268 F . S. 242 (1 9 6 7 ) ..................................................  13

S tatu tes :

W is .  Stats. , S ect ion s  267. 01, 267. 02,
2 6 7 .0 5 ,  2 6 7 .0 7 ,  2 6 7 .1 3 ,  2 6 7 .1 6 ,  2 6 7 .1 8 ,
267. 20 (1967 P o ck e t  P art .  ) ................................. 2, 3

W is .  Stats. , S ections  267. 01, et s e q ..............  3

W is .  S ta ts . ,  1965, 2 6 7 .0 7 ...................................... 9

W is .  Stats. , 1965, 267. 15 -  267. 1 6 .................. 10

L e g a l  E n c y c lo p e d ia s :

16A C. J. S. C onstitu tional Law,
S ection  619, page 8 0 8 ..................................  9

16 A m . Jur. 2d C onstitutional Law,
S ect ion  576, page 9 8 0 ..................................  10

16 A m . Jur. 2d, supra , page  9 8 1 ....................... H

16A C. J. S. Constitutional Law,
S ect ion  613, page 7 6 2 .................................. 12

6 A m . Jur. 2d A ttachm ent & G arn ishm ent,
S ect ion  5, page  563 ..................................................  12

P a g e



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITEO STATES
O cto b e r  T e r m ,  1968 No. 130

IN THE

CHRISTINE SNIADACH,
P e t it io n e r ,

-  v -

F A M IL Y  FIN AN C E C O R P O R A T IO N  OF BAY 
VIEW  and M IL L E R  HARRIS IN STRU M EN T 
C O M P A N Y .

ON W RIT OF C E R T IO R A R I TO THE 
S U P R E M E  COURT O F WISCONSIN

B R IE F  F O R  RE SPO N DEN T

OPINIONS BE LO W

The o r d e r  o f  the M ilw aukee County Court o f  
W is c o n s in  (R. 118 -120 ; A . 10 -11 )  is u n rep orted .  
The m e m o ra n d u m  d e c is io n  o f  the M ilw aukee C i r ­
cuit Court o f  W is c o n s in  (R. 101 -110 ; A. 14-23 ) 
is  a ls o  u n re p o r te d .  The d e c is io n  o f  the S uprem e 
C ou rt  o f  W is c o n s in  (R. 126 -148 ; A . 2 7 -5 1 )  is r e ­
p o r te d  at 37 W is .  2d 163, 154 N. W. 2d 259 (1967).



2

JURISDICTION

The judgm ent o f  the S up rem e Court o f  W is ­
c o n s in  w as en tered  on D e c e m b e r  8 , 1967 (A. 26). 
R e h e a r in g  w as  den ied  on F e b r u a r y  27, 1968 (A. 52). 
The petition  f o r  w r it  o f  c e r t i o r a r i ,  f i led  M ay 27, 
1968, w as granted F e b ru a r y  24, 1969 (A. 54). 
J u r isd ic t io n  o f  this Court r e s ts  on 28 U. S. C.
§ 1257(3), p e t it ion er  having a s s e r t e d  b e lo w  and 
a s s e r t in g  h e re  the d ep r iv a t ion  o f  r ights  s e c u r e d  
by the C onstitution  o f  the United States.

QUESTION P R E S E N T E D

P e t it io n e r  is  a $65. 00 p e r  w eek  w age  e a r n e r .  
H alf the w ages  due h e r  w e r e  ga rn ish e e d  b e fo r e  
tr ia l  by p la in tif f  in a law su it  aga inst  h er .  Under 
W is c o n s in  law, b e fo r e  p e t i t io n e r 's  w a g es  w e r e  g a r ­
n ish eed , she had no right to n o t ice  and h ea r in g  o r  
o th er  p r o c e d u r e  fo r  ch a llen g in g  the le g a l i ty  o f  the 
ga rn ish m en t sought by p la in tiff .  The p la in tiff  did 
not have to show  that w ithout ga rn ish m en t,  he 
w ou ld  be un like ly  to  obtain ju r is d ic t io n  o v e r  p e ­
t it io n e r  or  to  c o l l e c t  a m o n e y  judgm ent, n or  did 
he have to show  p ro b a b le  ca u se  to b e l ie v e  that p e ­
t i t io n e r  ow ed  h im  any m o n e y ,  nor  any o th er  re a s o n  
p u rp o rt in g  to ju s t i fy  den ia l o f  n o t ice  and h ear ing . 
D oes  this p r o c e d u r e  deny due p r o c e s s  o f  law  s e ­
cu r e d  by  the F ou rteen th  A m e n d m e n t?

C O N S T IT U T IO N A L  AND S T A T U T O R Y  
PROVISIONS IN V O L V E D

1. Th is  c a s e  in v o lv e s  the Fourteenth  A m e n d ­
m en t  to the Constitution  o f  the United States.

2. Th is  c a s e  in v o lv e s  W is .  Stats. Sections  
267. 01, 2 6 7 .0 2 ,  267. 05, 267. 07, 267. 13, 2 6 7 .1 6 ,



3

267. 18, 267. 20 (1967 P ock et  P a rt ) .  T h ey  a re  set 
fo r th  in the appendix in fra , p. la .

S T A T E M E N T

P e t it io n e r  C h ris t in e  Sniadach is a w age  e a r n e r  
and re s id e n t  o f  M ilw aukee, W is co n s in .  F a m ily  
F in a n ce  C o rp o ra t io n  o f  Bay V iew  (respondent h ere )  
is engaged  in the f inance  and loan  b u s in e s s .  P e ­
t it ion er  on S ep tem b er  2, 1964 b o r r o w e d  the sum  
o f  $ 1 , 800. 00 f r o m  the respondent and as o f  the 
date o f  the institution  o f  the o r ig in a l  act ion , N o ­
v e m b e r  16, 1966, a ba lance  o f  $1, 500. 00 w as s til l  
due and ow ing. The garn ish m en t c o m m e n c e d  un­
d e r  W is c o n s in  garn ishm ent law, W is . Stats. S e c ­
t ions  267. 01 et seq . ( A - 5 -6 ) ,  w as fo r  back  p a y ­
m en ts  on ly  not f o r  the en t ire  ba lan ce . G arn ish ee  
a n sw er  r e v e a le d  that $31. 5 9 w as due and ow ing. 
The c la im  o f  the p r in c ip a l  a c t ion  f o r  $420. 00 has 
been  stayed  pending the o u tco m e  o f  this p r o c e e d ­
ing in vo lv in g  the W is c o n s in  garn ish m en t law.

HOW THE F E D E R A L  QUESTION WAS 
RAISED AND D ECIDED BE LO W

P e t it io n e r  sought by o r d e r  to show  ca u se  in 
the County C ourt to d is m is s  the garn ish m en t on 
the ground that the W is c o n s in  p r o c e d u r e  f o r  p r e ­
judgm en t ga rn ish m en t d e p r iv e d  h er  o f  due p r o c e s s  
o f  law under the F ou rteenth  A m endm ent to the 
F e d e r a l  Constitution . H earing  w as pending and 
on January 7, 1967, Judge Thaddeus P r u s s  o f  the 
County Court held  that "the garn ishm ent a ct ion  in 
the instant p r o c e e d in g s  d oes  not v io la te  defen dant 's  
constitu t ion a l r ights  under . . . the United States 
C on stitu tion  14th A m en d m en t due p r o c e s s  and 
equal p r o t e c t io n "  (A. 10-11 ).



4

On appeal to the C ircu it  Court o f  M ilw aukee, 
p e t it io n e r  argu ed  that the garn ishm ent statute 
" d e p r iv e s  the defendant o f  due p r o c e s s  o f  law  in 
v io la t io n  o f  the F ourteenth  A m en d m en t to the 
United States Constitution  b e ca u se  the defendant 
is  g iven  no h ear in g  b e fo r e  be in g  d e p r iv e d  o f  his 
p r o p e r ty .  "  The C ircu it  C ourt a f f i r m e d  on M arch  
15, 1967, stating that "d e fen d a n t 's  argu m en t r e ­
je c t s  the fa c t  that nothing has happened to  the d e ­
fendant 's  tit le  excep t  it is t e m p o r a r i ly  in su sp e n ­
s ion  pending a final ad ju d ica t ion  on the debt ow ed 
the p la in t i f f "  (A. 14 -23 ).

In the S up rem e C ourt o f  W is c o n s in  argu m en t 
w as  had betw een  the p e t it ion er  and respondent and 
su bsequ en tly  the sa m e  q u est ion  o f  due p r o c e s s  and 
equal p r o te c t io n  w as brought up and on D e c e m b e r  
8 , 1967, the S up rem e Court o f  W is c o n s in  a f f i r m e d  
the d e c is io n  be low  hold ing that " W is c o n s in 's  g a r ­
n ishm ent b e f o r e  judgm ent statutes do not d e p r iv e  
appellant o f  h e r  p r o p e r ty  without due p r o c e s s  o f  
la w "  (A. 2 7 -4 1 ) .  The Court quoted  with a p p ro v a l  

the language o f  B yrd  v. R e c t o r , 112 W. Va. 192, 
163 S. E. 845 (1932):

(A) Defendant is not d e p r iv e d  o f  his p r o p ­
er ty  by  re a s o n  o f  the le v y  o f  a co p y  o f  the 
a ttachm ent upon a p e r s o n  who is indebted 
to h im  o r  who has e f fe c ts  in his  cu s to d y  b e ­
long ing  to the defendant. The m o s t  that such 
p r o c e d u r e  d oes  is to d e p r iv e  defendant o f  
the p o s s e s s i o n  o f  his p r o p e r t y  t e m p o r a r i ly  
by  es ta b lish in g  a l ien  th e re o n  . . . Until 
(a f ina l)  judgm ent is obta ined , the d e fen d ­
ant 's  p r o p e r ty  in the hands o f  a ga rn ish ee  
is im m une f r o m  the p la in t i f f 's  g ra s p  . . .
(A. 35).



5

Tw o Ju st ices  o f  the W is c o n s in  S uprem e Court 
d issen ted , the ir  contention  being "the test  is 
w hether  he w as d e p r iv e d  o f  his p r o p e r t y "  (A. 13).

SU M M ARY  OF AR G U M E N T

G arn ishm ent o f  w ages  o f  an a l le g e d  d ebtor  
p r i o r  to judgm ent is a le g is la t iv e  r e m e d y  given  to 
c r e d i t o r s  to enable them  to c o l l e c t  th e ir  just debts .  
Such act ion  is n o r m a l ly  taken on ly  a fter  n u m erou s  
re q u e s ts  f o r  paym ent have been  m a d e . P r o v is io n s  
can  be m a d e  with the C ou rts  fo r  im m ed ia te  tr ia l  
o f  the p r in c ip a l  a c t ion ,  so  that the d eb tor  can  have 
h is  day in C ourt. In n u m erou s  c a s e s  the d eb tor  
has b e c o m e  w e l l  educated  and ad v ise d  as to how 
to  avo id  paying just debts and the c r e d i t o r  is the 
one who is d e p r iv e d  o f  his m o n ie s  and on n u m erou s  
o c c a s io n s  m e r c h a n d is e .

If the Statute did not p ro v id e  f o r  im m e d ia te  
t r ia l  o f  the p r in c ip a l  act ion , then this w ou ld  c o n ­
stitute a denia l o f  due p r o c e s s ,  but they a re  s p e ­
c i f i c ,  in that they d ist ingu ish  betw een  the g a r ­
n ishm ent a ct ion  and the p r in c ip a l  a c t ion  to a f fo rd  
r e l i e f  to the d eb tor .

A R G U M E N T

P R E -J U D G M E N T  GARNISHM ENT AS A
M EAN S OF C O L L E C T IN G  JUST DEBTS

P e t it io n e r  in h er  argu m en t d w elled  upon the 
c a s e s  o f  u n scru pu lou s  m e rch a n ts  and le n d e rs  
w h o se  p r a c t i c e s  trap  the s o - c a l l e d  "unw illing  
w o r k e r s .  " T oday , in a s o c ia l ly  c o n s c io u s  s o ­
c ie ty  the pendulum  is sw ing ing  to p r o te c t  the c o n ­
s u m e r .  The R espondent a g r e e s  that th ere  a re  
in ju s t ic e s  in the garn ish m en t and re p le v in  a ttach ­
m ent p r o c e d u r e s  but nothing is sa id  about the



6

a v e ra g e  c r e d i t o r  who in m o s t  c a s e s  d oes  not g a r ­
n ish ee  within 10 days but only a fte r  n u m erou s  
n o t ic e s  and re q u e s ts  f o r  paym ent a re  m ad e  o v e r  
a long  p e r io d  o f  t im e .

It a p p ea rs  no one is  c o n c e r n e d  w ith the c r e d ­
ito r  who has e ith er  advanced  m o n ie s  " d o l la r  fo r  
d o lla  r " o r  m e r c h a n d is e  w h ich  is c o n s u m e d  o r  used  
by  the d e b to r  without r e g a r d  fo r  his  ob lig a t ion  to 
r e p a y  o r  re tu rn  the m e r c h a n d is e  used  o r  the 
m o n ie s  b o r r o w e d .

In the m a tte r  b e f o r e  the c o u r t  the a ccou n t  in 
q u e st io n  w as  delinquent in e x c e s s  o f  2 y e a r s  b e ­
f o r e  any lega l  a c t io n  w as taken.

P e t it io n e r  states  that ga rn ish m en t is g e n e r ­
a l ly  the w eapon  o f  p r e d a to ry  c r e d i t o r s .  In our 
sh ift ing  s o c ie t y  w h e re  d e b to rs  m o v e  f r o m  day to 
day o r  w eek  to w eek  it is the on ly  m eth od  by  w h ich  
a m e rch a n t  o r  le n d e r  can get his  m o n e y  o r  in the 
c a s e  o f  a r e p le v in  his m e r c h a n d is e .

The ga rn ish m en t s ituation  in v o lved  h e re in  
r e m in d s  the R espondent o f  the s ituation  w hen e m ­
p lo y e r s  had the upper  hand o v e r  la b o r  o r g a n iz a ­
t ions  and e m p lo y e e s ,  su bsequently , le g is la t io n  
w as  p a s s e d  fa v o r in g  la b o r .  It a p p e a rs  now that 
th ere  is an attem pt to b r in g  the equa lity  betw een  
la b o r  and m an ag em en t so  that both p a r t ie s  w il l  
have equal r ights  and equal p ro te c t io n .

With the fo r th c o m in g  U n iform  C o n su m e r  
C re d it  C ode  the c o n s u m e r  is getting n eed ed  p r o ­
te c t io n  and with the p a s sa g e  o f  the C o n su m e r  
C re d it  P r o te c t io n  A c t  a d e b to r  w il l  be r e c e iv in g  
n eed ed  and long  o v e rd u e  p r o te c t io n .  In both in ­
s ta n c e s ,  th ese  a r e  a c t io n s  o f  the le g is la tu r e  and 
not the ju d ic ia r y .



7

In the c a s e  b e fo r e  the C ourt, A n sw e r  was 
f i led  in this m a tte r  on D e ce m b e r  16, 1966. D e ­
fendant cou ld  have req u ested  the C ourt f o r  im ­
m e d ia te  t r ia l  on h er  A n sw e r  and the Court w ould  
h ave , under its p o l ic y ,  s ch ed u led  the m a tte r  fo r  
h ea r in g .

The on ly  d ep r iv a t ion  w as ca u se d  by the d e ­
fendant h e r s e l f  and not by  any sta tu tory  c la im  o r  
by  the Court.

It is  not denied  that c o l le c t io n  o f  delinquent 
a ccou n ts  is  h igh ly  s y s te m iz e d ,  in fa c t ,  it m ust  
be  so  in o r d e r  to e f fe c t iv e ly  obtain  a re tu rn  of 
the m o n e y  lent.

What p e t it ion er  su gg ests  ap p ea rs  to be that 
s in c e  the c r e d i t o r s  have m o r e  m o n e y  than the 
d e b to r s ,  the c r e d i t o r s  should  b e a r  the l o s s  and 
the d eb tor  should  go " s c o t  f r e e " .

GARNISHM ENT IS A L E G IS L A T IV E  
PR OCESS NOT JUDICIARY

G arn ishm ent p r o c e d u r e  is e s s e n t ia l ly  an 
is s u e  o f  the L e g is la tu re  and not o f  the Ju d ic ia ry .  
In c o m m o n  law  the r e m e d y  o f  garn ish m en t was 
not known and as in ou r  law s r e m e d y  is  a c r e a ­
ture  o f  the L e g is la tu re .  T h e re  is a c l e a r  d i s ­
t in ct ion  betw een  le g is la t iv e  and Judicia l a c ts .
The L e g is la tu re  m a k es  the law ; the co u r ts  apply 
it, In re  M a n u fa c tu r e r 's  F re ig h t  F o r w a r d in g  Co. , 
2 94 M ich . 57, 292 N. W. 678, 680 (1940), and 
a ls o  S ch o lb e rg  vs . I tn y re , 264 W is . 211, 58 N. W. 
2d 648 (1952).

The b e f o r e  judgm ent ga rn ish m en t statutes 
a r e  a c r e a tu r e  o f  the L e g is la tu re  and a new right 
g iven  to the c r e d i t o r  to p u rsu e  his re m e d y .



8

In C off in  B r o s .  & Co. v . B ennett, 277 US 
29, 72 L. Ed. 768, 48 S. Ct. 422 (1927) at page 
769, Ju st ice  H o lm es  sta tes :

. .n o th in g  is m o r e  c o m m o n  than to a llow  
p a r t ie s  a l le g in g  th e m s e lv e s  to be c r e d i t o r s  
to  e s ta b l ish  by attachm ent a l ien  dependent 
upon the resu lt  o f  the suit. "

Skaleck i v. F r e d e r i c k .  31 W is .  2d 496, 502 
(1966) r e c o g n iz e d  the right o f  the L e g is la tu re  to 
c r e a t e  such  a r e m e d y  w hen it sta tes :

"T h e  g e n era l  ru le  is that in a b s e n ce  o f  
s ta tu tory  au th or iza tion  garn ish m en t w i l l  
not l ie  s in c e  it w as unknown to the c o m m o n  
law  and it is c o m p le te ly  s ta tu tory . "

Th is  w as fu r th e r  set fo r th  in Standard Oil 
v. S u p er io r  Court o f  New C a st le  C ou nty , 44 Del. 
538, 69 S. Ct. 738 h o ld s :

"A  state m a y  by a p p ro p r ia te  le g is la t io n  au ­
th o r iz e  attachm ent o r  ga rn ish m en t o f  p r o p ­
e r ty  w ith in  its b o r d e r s  su b je c t  to the l i m i ­
tations o f  the f e d e r a l  and state c o n s t itu ­
t ion s .  "

R espondent contends  that the c o u r t  is  a c t in g  
ou ts ide  its function  when it takes to changing a 
c r e a tu r e  o f  the L e g is la tu re  by  ju d ic ia l  p r o c e s s .

II.

E m p lo y e e s ,  o r  ga rn ish e e  defendants a re  not 
d e p r iv e d  o f  th e ir  r ights  under the Due P r o c e s s  
C la u se .



9

W is c o n s in  Statutes 1965, 2 6 7 .0 7  says  in 
part:

. . n o t ice  o f  such  s e r v i c e  ( s e r v ic e  on the 
g a rn ish e e )  in substantia l c o n fo r m ity  with 
sub. (4), o r  a c o p y  o f  the ga rn ish ee  s u m ­
m on s  and com pla in t ,  togeth er  with the su m ­
m o n s  in the p r in c ip a l  act ion , shall be s e r v e d  
on  the p r in c ip a l-d e fe n d a n t  as r e q u ir e d  fo r  
the e x e r c i s e  o f  p e rso n a l  ju r is d ic t io n  under 
Ch. 262 not la te r  than 10 days a fte r  the 
s e r v i c e  on the ga rn ish ee  as p r o v id e d  in 
s .  2 6 2 . 06. "

The P e t it io n e r  m ust a g r e e  that under the 
abov e  statute n o t ice  is given the p r in c ip a l -  
defendant as r e q u ir e d  by  due p r o c e s s .  The P e ­
t it io n e r  a rgu ed  that she had no n o t ice  until a fte r  
the p r o p e r ty  w as s e iz e d .  The a n sw er  to this is 
that no one finds out anything until a fte r  it hap­
p en s .  The A ppellant argu ed  that she should  be 
n o t if ied  p r io r  to the n o t ice  be ing  s e r v e d  upon the 
g a rn ish e e .  The R espondent a n sw e re d  that due 
p r o c e s s  r e q u ir e s  on ly  n o t ice .  It knows o f  no 
authority  that r e q u ir e s  n o t ice  be  g iven  at a p a r ­
t ic u la r  t im e . Due p r o c e s s  s im p ly  r e q u ir e s  n o ­
t i c e  su ff ic ie n t  to a l low  the p r in c ip a l-d e fe n d a n t  
to  ap p ear  and defend.

16A C. J. S. Constitutional Law, S ection  619, 
page  808 sta tes :

. . it is held  that m e r e  s e iz u r e  o f  his p r o p ­
er ty ,  as in attachm ent o r  garn ish m en t p r o ­
ce e d in g s  con stitu tes  su ff ic ien t  n o t ice .  11

The s e co n d  re q u ire m e n t  o f  due p r o c e s s  is 
that th ere  be  a h ear in g  to d e te rm in e  the l ia b i l i ty



10

o f  the p a r t ie s .  The R espondent subm its  that this 
r e q u ire m e n t  is  m et  by the statutes qu est ion ed .

W is .  Stat. 1965 267. 16 p r o v id e s  f o r  a d e ­
te rm in a t io n  o f  l ia b i l i ty  in the p r in c ip a l  a c t ion  but 
267. 15 a ls o  a llow s  fo r  a ju d ic ia l  h ea r in g  in the 
m a tte r  o f  the garn ish m en t i t s e l f .  Th is  statute 
a l lo w s  the p r in c ip a l-d e fe n d a n t  to defend  again.

P h il l ip s  v. C o m m is s io n e r  o f  Internal R evenue, 
283 US 589, 51 S. Ct. 608, 75 L . Ed. 1289 (1930) 
s t a t e s :

"W h e re  on ly  p r o p e r ty  r ights  a re  in vo lved , 
M E R E  P O S T P O N E M E N T  OF THE JU D ICIAL 
INQUIRY IS NOT A D E N IA L O F  DUE P R O C ­
ESS, if the opportun ity  given  f o r  the u lt i ­
m ate  ju d ic ia l  d e term in a tion  o f  the l ia b i l i t ie s  
is  adequate . "

16 A m . Jur. 2d C onstitu tional Law, S ection  
576, page 980, s ta tes :

"A  p arty  m u st  not be d e p r iv e d  o f  his p r o p ­
e r ty  without a ju d ic ia l  h ear in g ,  but the stage 
o f  p r o c e e d in g s  at w h ich  the h ear in g  shall 
take p la ce  and the m a n n e r  in w h ich  the cau se  
o f  the p a r ty  shall be  brought b e fo r e  the ju ­
d ic ia l  tr ibunal, p ro v id e d  it is not an u n r e a s o n ­
a b ly  inconven ient and e m b a r r a s s in g  one , a re  
w ithin  the le g is la t iv e  p ow er .

Due p r o c e s s  o f  law  is a f fo r d e d  lit igants  i f  
they have an op portun ity  to be h eard  at any 
t im e  b e fo r e  fina l judgm ent is  e n tered . "

Th is  last  p r in c ip le  w as upheld  in Boynton 
Cab C o. v. G i e s e . 237 W is .  237, 296 N. W. 630 
(1941).



11

16 A m . Jur. 2d, supra , page 981 sta tes :

" F r o m  the fo re g o in g  it fo l lo w s ,  that although 
it is the g e n era l  ru le  that e v e ry o n e  is  en ­
t it led  to a h ear in g  as an e s se n t ia l  part  of 
due p r o c e s s  o f  law, a statute is not m e r e ly  
unconstitu tional b e c a u s e  it a u th or izes  a 
m in is te r ia l  act  by  w h ich  p o s s e s s io n  o f  p r o ­
p e r ty  is taken b e fo r e  the r ight to it has been 
ju d ic ia l ly  d e te rm in e d .  "

The p e t it io n e r  argu ed  that the c r e d i t o r  has 
not opportun ity  f o r  h ear ing . The R espondent a s ­
s e r t s  that b e ca u s e  th ere  is not an e a r ly  h ear in g  
the p r in c ip a l -d e fe n d a n t  cannot p lead  his e x e m p ­
t ion s .  In P i e r c e  v. C h ica go  & N orth w estern  
R a ilw ay  C o . , 36 W is . 283, 287 sta tes :

. . i f  the ga rn ish e e  knows that the p ro p e r ty ,  
m o n e y  o r  indebtedness  in his  p o s s e s s i o n  o r  
under his  c o n tr o l ,  is exem p t, it is his duty 
f o r  s e l f  p ro te c t io n ,  to b r in g  that fa ct  to the 
n o t ice  o f  the co u rt .  "

In fa c t ,  the c r e d i t o r ,  by p r o p e r  p lead ings  
cou ld  have p etit ion ed  the co u rt  f o r  an im m ed ia te  
t r ia l  w h ich  has in the past and at the p re se n t  t im e 
been  n o r m a l ly  granted  by the c o u r ts .  In the c a s e  
o f  H en d erson  v. Mutual F e r t i l i z e r  C om pany 
(S. C. , Ga. , 1920) 104 S. E. 229, the co u rt  held  
that the ga rn ish m en t p r o c e s s  w as not a d e p r iv a ­
t ion  o f  due p r o c e s s  o f  law  o r  o f  the equal p r o ­
te c t io n  o f  law  as guaranteed  by  the Constitution  
o f  G e o rg ia  o r  the United States.

In E a g le s o n  vs . Rubin (S. C. , Id a . ,  1909), 
100P  765 it w as held  that "D ue P r o c e s s  o f  L a w "



12

as u sed  in the C onstitution  o f  Idaho and the United 
States as app lied  to ju d ic ia l  p r o ce e d in g s  m eans  
that e v e r y  litigant shall have the right to  have 
his ca u se  t r ie d  and d e te rm in e d  under the ru les  
o f  p r o c e d u r e ,  the sa m e  as app lied  to o ther  s i m i ­
la r  c a s e s ;  and when this is a f fo rd e d  h im , a d e ­
fendant cannot c la im  that due p r o c e s s  o f  law is 
not be in g  o b s e r v e d .

(A lso  See: G rannis vs .  O rdean , 34 S. C.
779)

Not on ly  do the W is c o n s in  Statutes m e e t  the 
due p r o c e s s  r e q u ire m e n ts  and p ro v id e  su ff ic ien t  
p r o te c t io n s ,  statutes o f  this type have been  up ­
h e ld .

16A C. J. S. Constitutional Law, S ect ion  613, 
page  762 s ta tes :

" P a r t i c u la r  p r o v is io n a l  r e m e d ie s  w h ich  
have been  held  as not denying due p r o c e s s  
under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s  include  . . . g a r ­
n ish m en t. . . . "

6 A m . Jur. 2d A ttachm ent & G arn ishm ent, 
S ect ion  5, page 563 sta tes :

"An attachm ent o r  garn ish m en t is not a d e ­
p r iva t ion  o f  p r o p e r t y  without due p r o c e s s  of 
law within the m ean in g  o f  con stitu tion a l 
p r o v is io n s ,  in asm u ch  as th ere  m u st  be an 
ad ju d ica t ion  o f  the r ights  o f  the p a r t ie s  b e ­
f o r e  the p r o p e r t y  can be su b je c te d  to the 
p la in t i f f 's  c la im .  "

The lead ing  c a s e  in this a re a  is B yrd  v. 
R e c t o r , 163 S .E .  845, 81 A. L. R. 1213, 1216 
(1932), w h e re in  a garn ish m en t b e f o r e  judgm ent 
statute w as qu est ion ed , the c o u r t  th ere  sa id :



13

"W e  think the a n sw er  to these  p ro p o s it io n s  
is that the defendant is  not d e p r iv e d  o f  his 
p r o p e r ty  by re a s o n  o f  the le v y  o f  the c o p y  
o f  the attachm ent upon a p e r s o n  who is in ­
debted  to h im  o r  who has e f fe c ts  be long ing  
to  the defendant. The m o s t  that such  p r o ­
ce d u re  does  is to d e p r iv e  the defendant o f  
the p o s s e s s i o n  o f  his p r o p e r t y  t e m p o r a r i ly  
by  es ta b lish in g  a l ie n  th ereon . W hether the 
defendant shall be d e p r iv e d  o f  such  p r o p e r ty  
m u st  depend o f  c o u r s e  upon the p la in t i f f 's  
subsequent ab il ity  to obtain  a judgm ent in 
p e r s o n a m  o r  in r e m  on his c la im  against the 
defendant. If, a f te r  having fu ll opportun ity  
to be  h e a rd  in d e fe n se  o f  such  c la im ,  a ju d g ­
m en t  is r e n d e r e d  th ereon  aga inst the d e ­
fendant o r  h is  p r o p e r ty ,  th ere  has been  no 
la c k  o f  due p r o c e s s .  "

In M cln n es  v. M c K a y , 141 A. 699 (1928), 
w h e r e in  a statute l ik e  the one h e r e in  qu est ion ed  
w as  b e in g  q u est ion ed , the co u rt  th ere  stated:

" .  . . it is not a d e p r iv a t io n  w ithout due p r o c ­
e s s ,  w h ich  during  its p r o c e e d in g  g ives  n o ­
t ic e  and opportun ity  f o r  h e a r in g  and ju d g ­
m en t  o f  s o m e  ju d ic ia l  o r  o th er  au th or ized  
tr ibunal.  The re q u ir e m e n ts  o f  'due p r o c e s s  
o f  law ' and 'law  o f  the land ' a r e  sa t is f ie d .  "

The resp on d en t  subm its  that due p r o c e s s  is 
m e t  by  the statutes q u e s t io n e d  b e ca u s e  n o t ice  
and op p ortu n ity  f o r  a h e a r in g  a re  p r e se n t  and 
that fu r th er  p r o te c t io n s  a r e  p r e se n t  to s e c u r e  
the d e b t o r 's  r igh ts .

The m o r e  r e c e n t  c a s e  United States v. D e ­
p a rtm en t  o f  C o r r e c t io n s  o f  State o f  D e la w a re ,
268 F . S. 242 (1967) a n sw er in g  the qu est ion  o f



14

the p ost in g  o f  a bond, the p e t it io n e r  a rgu ed  that 
th ere  w as  a v io la t ion  o f  the Equal P r o te c t io n  Law 
C lause  in asm u ch  as a p e r s o n  s im i la r ly  ch a rg e d  
w ith one o f fe n s e  who cou ld  p ost  bond, w ou ld  avo id  
any fu rth er  p o l i c e  in te r ro g a t io n  w h ile  he, as one 
unable to m e e t  bond re q u ir e m e n ts ,  w as  not g iven  
equal p r o te c t io n  o f  the law with one who cou ld  
m ak e  ba il .  The cou rt  th ere  w as not g iven  equal 
p r o te c t io n  o f  the law . In that c a s e  the co u r t  
stated, "a  state can , c o n s is te n t ly  w ith the 14th 
am endm ent, p r o v id e  f o r  d i f f e r e n c e s  so  long  as 
the resu lt  d oes  not am ount to a denial o f  due 
p r o c e s s  o r  an 'in v id iou s  d is c r im in a t io n ' .  A b ­
so lu te  equa lity  is not r e q u ire d ;  l in es  can be and 
a r e  draw n and w e ought to susta in  them . "

CONCLUSION

R espondent adm its  that the G arn ishm ent 
Law s a r e  in need  o f  r e v is io n ,  h o w e v e r ,  subm its  
that ga rn ish m en t,  b e in g  a c r e a tu r e  o f  the L e g i s ­
la tu re ,  m u st  be changed  by le g is la t iv e  a ct ion  and 
not by the ju d ic ia r y .

A dequate sa feg u a rd s  fo r  im m e d ia te  h e a r in g  
a r e  a v a ila b le  and but f o r  the p e t it io n e rs  delay , 
the p r in c ip a l  a c t ion  and the a c co m p a n y in g  g a r ­
n ishm ent co u ld  have been  d is p o s e d  of.

The d e p r iv a t io n  as r e f e r r e d  to by  the p e ­
t it io n e r  is , in re a l ity ,  a tw o -e d g e d  sw o rd ,  in 
that by  fa v o r in g  the w age e a r n e r ,  the c r e d i t o r s  
a r e  be in g  j e o p a r d iz e d  by  not r e c e iv in g  th e ir  le g a l  
due, to w it: m o n e y  or  g o o d s ,  to w h ich  they  a re  
entit led .



15

T h e r e fo r e ,  in this instance , the judgm ent 
as en tered  should be a llow ed  to stand.

R e s p e c t fu l ly  subm itted ,

SHELDON D. FRAN K

SIDNEY G R A Y  
Of C ou nse l

A ttorn eys  fo r  Respondent



R E S P O N D E N T 'S  A P P E N D IX



l a

A P P E N D IX

S T A T U T O R Y  PROVISIONS IN V O LVE D

This  c a s e  in v o lves  the fo l lo w in g  statutes o f  
the State o f  W is co n s in :

(a) W is .  Stat. S 267. 01 (1967 P o ck e t  P a rt )

(1) Any c r e d i t o r  m a y  p r o c e e d  against 
any p e r s o n  who is indebted  to o r  has any p r o p ­
e r ty  in his  p o s s e s s i o n  o r  under his  c o n tr o l  
be lon g in g  to such  c r e d i t o r 's  d eb tor ,  as p r e ­
s c r ib e d  in this ch ap ter . "P la in t i f f "  as u sed
in this ch ap ter  in c lu d es  a judgm ent c r e d i t o r  
and "d e fen d a n t" ,  a judgm ent d e b to r .

(2) E x cep t  as o th e rw is e  p r o v id e d  in this < 
ch a p ter ,  the p r o c e d u r e  in garn ish m en t a ct ion s  
shall be the sa m e  as in o r d in a r y  c iv i l  a c ­
t ion s .

(2a) A garn ish m en t a ct ion  is  a sepa ra te  
act ion .

(3) An individual m a y  c o m m e n c e  a g a r ­
n ishm ent a ct ion  in h is  own p e r s o n  and in his 
own beha lf,  o r  by  an a ttorn ey  l i c e n s e d  to 
p r a c t i c e  in the co u rts  o f  this state, but not 
o th e r w is e .  G arn ishm ent a c t ion s  on beha lf  
o f  any o th er  p arty  shall be c o m m e n c e d  on ly  
by a ttorn eys  l i c e n s e d  to p r a c t i c e  in the co u rts  
o f  this state .

(4) No ga rn ish m en t a ct ion  sha ll  be 
brought to r e c o v e r  the p r i c e  o r  value o f  
sp ir itu o u s ,  m a lt ,  ardent o r  in tox ica ting  
l iq u o r s  s o ld  at re ta il .



2 a

(1) A p la in tiff  m a y  c o m m e n c e  a g a rn ish ­
m ent a ct ion  at any t im e a fte r :

(a) A su m m on s  is  is su e d :  1. In an
a ct ion  f o r  d a m a g es  founded  upon co n tra c t ,  
e x p r e s s  o r  im p lie d  (or in a co n tr a c t  act ion  
w h e re  a w r it  o f  attachm ent cou ld  is s u e  on 
dem ands not yet due under s. 266 . 0 3 (3 )).
2. In an a ct ion  upon a judgm ent. 3. In a 
tort  a c t ion  w h e re  a w r it  o f  attachm ent cou ld  
is su e  under s. 266. 03(2).

(b) An e xecu t ion  upon an in p e r s o n a m  
judgm ent is is su a b le .

(2) If w ages  o r  s a la r y  a re  the su b ject  o f  
a garn ish m en t a ct ion ,  and paym ent o f  w ages  
o r  s a la r y  to the defendant is ,  has been , o r  
should  be , w ithheld  th ere in , p la in tif f  m a y  not 
c o m m e n c e  any other  ga rn ish m en t a ct ion  a f ­
fe c t in g  the w a g es  o r  s a la r y  o f  the p r in c ip a l  
defendant p r io r  to judgm ent in the p r in c ip a l  
act ion .

(3 )  E x cep t  as p r o v id e d  in sub. (2), the 
p la in tif f  m ay , in like m a n n er ,  subsequently  
p r o c e e d  against o th er  g a rn ish e e s ,  o r ,  if he 
has re a s o n  to b e l ie v e  they have su bsequ en tly  
b e c o m e  l ia b le ,  against the sa m e  ga rn ish e e .

(c) W is .  Stat. § 2 6 7 .0 4  (1967 P o ck e t  P a rt )

(1) Upon paym ent to the c le r k  o f  a c l e r k 's  
fee  o f  $2 and a suit tax o f  $ 1 , the c le r k  shall 
is s u e  a ga rn ish ee  su m m on s  toge th er  w ith

(b) W i s .  Stat.  § 2 6 7 . 0 2  (1967 P o c k e t  P a r t )



3a

su ff ic ie n t  c o p ie s  to the p la in t if f  o r  his  a t to r ­
ney ; the su m m on s  f o r m  m a y  be in blank, 
but m u st  c a r r y  the co u rt  s ea l .

(c) W is .  Stat. § 267. 05 (1967 P o ck e t  P a rt )

(1) The ga rn ish ee  co m p la in t  in a g a rn ish ­
m en t  a c t io n  b e fo r e  judgm ent m u st  a l le g e  the 
e x is te n c e  o f  one o f  the grounds f o r  g a rn ish ­
m en t  m en t ion ed  in s. 267. 0 2 ( l ) (a ) ,  the a -  
m ount o f  the p la in t i f f 's  c la im  against the d e ­
fendant, abov e  a ll  o f fs e t s ,  known to the p la in ­
tiff , and that p la in tif f  b e l ie v e s  that the nam ed 
g a rn ish e e  is  indebted  to o r  has p r o p e r t y  in 
his  p o s s e s s i o n  o r  under his c o n tr o l  be long ing  
to  the defendant (nam ing h im ) and that such  
ind ebted n ess  o r  p r o p e r t y  i s ,  to the b e s t  o f  
p la in t i f f 's  k now ledge  and b e l ie f ,  not exem pt 
f r o m  execu tion .

(d) W is .  Stat. § 2 6 7 .0 7  (1967 P ock et  P a rt )

(1) E x cep t  as p r o v id e d  in s . 267. 05(4), 
the ga rn ish e e  su m m on s  and com p la in t  shall 
be s e r v e d  on the ga rn ish ee  as r e q u ir e d  f o r  
the e x e r c i s e  o f  p e r s o n a l  ju r is d ic t io n  under 
ch . 26 2 , and n o t ice  o f  such  s e r v i c e  in su b ­
stantial c o n fo r m ity  with sub. (4), o r  a c o p y  
o f  the ga rn ish e e  su m m on s  and com p la in t ,  t o ­
geth er  w ith the su m m on s  in the p r in c ip a l  
a c t ion ,  shall be s e r v e d  on  the p r in c ip a l  d e ­
fendant as r e q u ir e d  f o r  the e x e r c i s e  o f  p e r ­
son a l ju r is d ic t io n  under ch . 262, not la ter  
than 10  days a fte r  s e r v i c e  on the ga rn ish ee  
as p r o v id e d  in s .  26 2 . 06.



4a

(1) If the a n sw er  show s a debt due to the 
defendant, the ga rn ish e e  m a y  pay the sam e 
o r  su ff ic ien t  th e r e o f  to c o v e r  the c la im  o f  
the p la in tiff ,  as stated  in the ga rn ish ee  c o m ­
plaint, with in te re s t  and c o s t s ,  to the c le r k  
o f  the co u rt .  If p r io r  to so  doing, the p la in ­
t i f f  in w rit in g  req u ests  the ga rn ish ee  to pay 
such sum  to such  c le r k ,  the ga rn ish e e  shall,  
w ithin 5 days a fte r  r e c e ip t  o f  such  req u est ,  
pay the sum  to the c le r k .  The c le r k  shall 
g ive  his r e c e ip t  t h e r e fo r  to the ga rn ish e e .  
Such paym ent shall d is c h a rg e  the ga rn ish ee  
o f  a ll l ia b i l i ty  f o r  the am ount so  paid .

(2) If the debt d i s c l o s e d  is not due, this 
s e c t io n  shall apply  w hen it b e c o m e s  due, with 
like  e f fe c t .

(3) If the ga rn ish e e  fa i ls  to pay such  
sum  within 5 days a fter  r e c e ip t  o f  such  r e ­
quest ,  the p la in tiff  shall be entitled  to ju d g ­
m ent aga inst  the ga rn ish e e  fo r  the am ount 
d i s c lo s e d ,  when due, e ith er  b e fo r e  o r  a fte r  
judgm ent in the o r ig in a l  a c t io n  and m a y  
c o l l e c t  the sam e by e xecu t ion ; but in c a s e  
no judgm ent has been  r e n d e r e d  in the p r in ­
c ip a l a c t io n  the e xecu t ion  against the g a r ­
n ish ee  shall r e q u ir e  the s h e r i f f  to pay the 
m o n e y  c o l l e c t e d  into cou rt  to abide the event 
o f  the p r in c ip a l  a c t ion .  M oneys  paid into 
cou rt  sha ll be paid  to the p la in tif f  w hen final 
judgm ent is r e n d e re d  in his fa v o r ,  and to 
the extent o f  sa t is fy in g  the sa m e , upon 
o r d e r  o f  the co u r t ,  and any ba lan ce  to the 
p arty  entitled  th ere to .

(e) W i s .  Stat.  § 267 .  13 (1967 P o c k e t  P a r t )



5a

(4) If no such  req u est  is m ad e  and the 
ga rn ish ee  d oes  not e le c t  to pay such  sum  to 
the c le r k ,  the ga rn ish ee  shall hold  the sam e 
until o r d e r  o f  the cou rt .  No stipu lation  b e ­
tw een  the p la in tiff  and the defendant shall 
be  h o n o re d  by the g a rn ish ee ,  until s igned  
and a p p rov ed  by the cou rt .

(5) If judgm ent is  against the p la intiff  
such  m o n e y s  shall be paid  to the defendant.

(f) W is .  Stat. 8 267. 16 (1967 P o ck e t  P a rt )

(1) No tr ia l  shall be had o f  the g a r ­
n ishm ent a ct ion  until the p la in tif f  has ju d g ­
m en t  in the p r in c ip a l  a c t ion  and if the d e ­
fendant has judgm ent the garn ishm ent a ct ion  
sha ll be  d i s m is s e d  with c o s t s .

(2) The co u r t  m a y  adjudge the r e c o v e r y  
o f  any debt, the c o n v e y a n ce ,  t r a n s fe r  o r  d e ­
l i v e r y  to the s h e r i f f  o r  any o f f i c e r  appointed  
by  the judgm ent o f  any rea l  estate  o r  p e r ­
sona l p r o p e r ty  d i s c lo s e d  o r  found to  be 
l ia b le  to be app lied  to the p la in t i f f 's  dem and; 
o r  by  the judgm ent p ass  the title  th ereto ;  and 
m a y  th e re in  o r  by  its o r d e r  d ir e c t  the m a n ­
n er  o f  m ak ing  sa le  and o f  d isp o s in g  o f  the 
p r o c e e d s  th e r e o f ,  o r  o f  any m o n e y  o r  o th er  
thing paid  o r  d e l iv e r e d  to the c l e r k  o r  o f ­
f i c e r .  The judgm ent against a ga rn ish ee  
shall d is c h a r g e  h im  f r o m  all dem ands by  the 
defendant f o r  a ll  p r o p e r ty  paid , d e l iv e r e d  o r  
a c co u n te d  f o r  by  the ga rn ish e e ,  by f o r c e  o f  
such  judgm ent.



6a

(1) F r o m  the t im e o f  the s e r v i c e  o f  the 
su m m on s  and com p la in t  upon the ga rn ish ee  he 
shall stand l ia b le  to the p la in tif f  f o r  the p r o p ­
er ty  then in his p o s s e s s io n  o r  under his c o n ­
t r o l  b e lon g in g  to the defendant o r  in w h ich
he is in te re s te d  to the extent o f  his r ight o r  
in te re s t  th e re in  and f o r  a ll his debts  due or  
to b e c o m e  due to  the defendant, e x ce p t  such  
as a re  exem pt f r o m  execu tion , but not in 
e x c e s s  o f  the am ount o f  the p la in t i f f 's  c la im s  
as d i s c l o s e d  by his g a rn ish e e  co m p la in t  t o ­
gether  with 25 p e r  cent o f  the am ount c la im e d  
in the ga rn ish e e  com p la in t  but not l e s s  than 
$25 n or  m o r e  than $500 to s e c u r e  c o s t s .

(2) (a) When w ages  o r  s a la r y  a re  the 
su b jec t  o f  ga rn ish m en t act ion , the ga rn ish ee  
shall pay o v e r  to the p r in c ip a l  defendant on 
the date w hen  such  w a g e s  o r  s a la r y  w ou ld  
n o r m a l ly  be payable  a s u b s is te n c e  a l lo w a n ce ,  
out o f  the w a g es  o r  s a la r y  then ow ing, in the 
sum  o f  $25 in the c a s e  o f  an individual w ith ­
out dependents o r  $40 in the c a s e  o f  an in ­
d iv idual with dependents; but in no event in 
e x c e s s  o f  50 p e r  cent o f  the w a g es  o r  s a la r y  
ow ing. Said su b s is te n c e  a l lo w a n ce  shall be 
ap p lied  to the f i r s t  w a g es  o r  s a la r y  earn ed
in the p e r io d  su b je c t  to sa id  garn ish m en t 
act ion .

(b) If the co u rt  d e te rm in e s  that the p r in ­
c ip a l  defendant is entitled  to an e x e m p tio n  
in e x c e s s  o f  the s u b s is te n c e  a l lo w a n ce  paid 
o v e r  o r  to be paid  o v e r  pursuant to this su b ­
s e c t io n ,  such  s u b s is te n c e  a l lo w a n ce  shall 
be set o f f  and ap p lied  against sa id  exem p tion .

(g) W is .  Stat.  S 267 .  18 (1967 P o c k e t  P a r t )



7a

If the cou rt  d e te rm in e s  that the p r in c ip a l  
defendant is entitled  to an exem p tion  le s s  
than the su b s is te n c e  a l lo w a n ce  paid  o v e r  o r  
to be paid  o v e r  pursuant to this su b sect ion ,  
such  su b s is te n c e  a llow an ce  shall be the e x ­
em p tion  to w h ich  the p r in c ip a l  defendant is 
entitled  in such  garn ishm ent act ion .

(h) W is .  Stat. 2 6 7 .2 0  (1967 P ock et  P a rt )

E x cep t  upon the o r d e r  o f  a judge no a c ­
t ion  shall be c o m m e n c e d  by  the defendant or  
his a s s ig n e e  against a ga rn ish ee  upon any 
g a rn ish ed  c la im  o r  dem and o r  to r e c o v e r  any 
p r o p e r t y  ga rn ish ed , o r  execu t ion  be is su e d  
upon a judgm ent in fa v o r  o f  defendant against 
such  ga rn ish e e ,  until the te rm in a t io n  o f  the 
ga rn ish m en t;  and i f  an a ct ion  has been  c o m ­
m e n c e d  o r  an e x e cu t io n  is su e d  it shall be 
stayed  by the c o u r t  o r  a judge t h e r e o f  as to 
the ga rn ish ee  upon his ap p lica t ion .



8a

INDEX TO  A P P E N D IX

S T A T U T O R Y  PROVISIONS IN V O LV E D

P age

la



Legai Briefs Company, 2700 Laura Lane, Middleton, Wisconsin 53562