
    Caldwell v. Stewart, Garnishee.
    1. G-amishment: "who liable to : innkeeper and guest. The guest of an innkeeper may be garnished in an action by a creditor against the innkeeper. It seems that debts due by a municipal or political corporation are the only exceptions to the operation of the statute respecting the garnishment of creditors of a debtor.
    2.-But if the innkeeper requires the guest to pay, or pledge payment, in advance of his keeping, no indebtedness arises that is the subject of garnishment.
    
      Appeal from Lee Ci/rouit Court.
    
    Friday, December 23.
    Tee plaintiff commenced his action by attachment against Henry Tepfer, and the writ of attachment was issued, and the appellant duly garnished thereon, on the 8th day of November, 1869. Afterward the plaintiff recovered a judgment against Tepfer for $331 and costs, and, on the 22d day of May, 1870, the garnishee was served with a rule to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against him. On the 2d of June, 1870, the garnishee answered to the rule, by first denying indebtedness of any hind to the defendant; second, that, about November 1, 1869, he, with his wife and child, put up at the hotel kept by defendant, called the “Tepfer Housethat he had with Mm a considerable amount of baggage, consistmg of his wardrobe, etc., of several hundred dollars in value; that he was a non-resident of the city and county; that he lived some, two hundred miles, more or less, from the city of Keokuk; that he was there temporarily on business, and left on the 14th of said month; that, on the 8th day of November, 1869, when the process of garnishment was served upon him, he owed defendant $21 for boarding; that defendant, at once, informed 1dm that he would look to him for the price and value of his board, and would hold his baggage for the same until it was paid; and, unless he would pledge the payment of the board or fare of himself and family thereafter, he would not keep him, which he did, as his business required him to stay six days longer; at the expiration of which time he paid the defendant $41.25, the amount of his board bill for himself and family for the entire timé they were the guests of the defendant.
    On this answer the court rendered judgment against the garnishee for the sum of $41.25, the whole amount of his bill at the hotel of defendant. From this judgment the garnishee appeals.
    
      Lowe & Mooar for the appellant.
    
      Curtis & Seaton for the appellee.
   Miller, J.

I. As to the $21.00 which the appellant was indebted to the defendant at the time of the service of the process of garnishment there can be no serious question. The garnishee was indebted to the defendant to that amount, and the service of process had the effect, in law, to transfer the indebtedness from the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, by his attachment of the debt due from the garnishee to defendant, took the place of the defendant, and succeeded to his (the defendant’s) rights for its recovery. The plaintiff, by the garnishment, sued the garnishee (the debtor) in the name of the defendant (the creditor), and was entitled to recover such sum as the defendant would have been entitled to if he had sued the garnishee in a direct action for the board bill then due. And these rights and liabilities are in nowise affected by the fact that the debt due was by a guest to an innkeeper, for the payment of which the latter had a lien on the baggage of the former. The lien only existed until payment, and whether the service of the garnishment process operated to divest the lien or not, the appellant could, at once, have paid the amount then due over to the sheriff, and thereby released his baggage from the lien. Rev., § 3207.

The appellant cites authorities holding that goods of a guest at an inn .are not distrainable for rent,” and argues therefrom that a debt due by a guest to his host is not the subject of garnishment. Our statute, in general terms, makes debts due by one person to another liable to be attached, by the process of garnishment, at the suit of a creditor of the latter, and the only exception made in the statute is in the case of debts due by a municipal or political corporation. They cannot be garnished. Rev., §§ 3194, 3195, 3196 and 3197. By this exception in the statute, the legislature, by implication, say that it is the only one intended.

II. As to the amount of appellant’s hotel fare, after he was garnished, the court erred in giving judgment against him therefor. It is true that, by the process of garnishment, debts to become due as well as those already duo are held. But the fare of the appellant and his wife, after the garnishment, never assumed the character of an indebtedness. The appellant was required by the defendant and did pledge the payment of the boarding of himself and wife, in advance, for such time as they remained at the defendant’s hotel. Whether the pledge consisted in money or property is not shown by the answer. If it was money, then the innkeeper was paid in advance to the extent of the amount pledged for the boarding. In the ease of a purchase of goods for cash, no indebtedness is created that would be the subject of garnishment The vendor retains the goods until the price is paid. No title passes to the vendee until he has paid the price. So, also, if an innkeeper requires his guest to pay for each meal before he receives it, or to pledge payment, in advance, for all the meals and lodging he may obtain, no indebtedness arises that is the subject of garnishment.

The judgment of the court below should have been for $21.00, the amount due by appellant to Tepfer at the time he was attached as garnishee, and for no more. Thus modified the judgment is affirmed, the appellee to pay the costs of this appeal.

Affirmed.  