
    (109 Tex. 363)
    McKNEELY v. ARMSTRONG.
    (No. 2535.)
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    March 12, 1919.)
    Assignments <§==>13 — Wages — Subsequent Employee — 'Validity oe Assignment.
    Assignment of wages to. be subsequently earned was void as to any wages thereafter earned by assignor in any other employment than that in which he was engaged at the time the assignment was executed, where subsequent employment by any particular employer was qot contemplated by parties in making assignment; such wages having no actual or potential existence at time assignment was entered into.
    Certified Question from Third Supreme Judicial District.
    Action by O. Armstrong against the Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company, in which defendant interpleaded C. E. McKneely and another. On certified question from Court of Civil Appeals.
    Question answered.
    See, also, 141 S. W. 1003.
    J. Y. Meek, of Houston, for plaintiff.
    Andrews, Ball & Streetman, Tom C. R’owe, and W. H. Nall, all of Houston, for defendant.
   HAWKINS, J.

The following certified question, with statement of the facts, comes from our Court of Civil Appeals for the First Supreme Judicial District, at Galveston:

“In this cause, which is now pending in this court on appeal from the county court of Harris county, appellee sued the Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company to recover wages alleged to be due him by said company for services rendered by him during the month of September,' 1910. The railway company answered that it owed the wages claimed by appellee, but that appellant O- E. McKneely claimed said wages under an assignment of wages made to him by appellee, and, having deposited the amount of said wages in court, asked that said McKneely be made a party to the suit. The appellant McKneely was duly cited and answered, claiming the amount deposited in court under the following assignment of wages made to him by appellee:

“The State of Texas, County of Harris.
“ ‘Know all men by these presents, that I, Odine Armstrong, of Harris county, Texas, for and in consideration of one hundred and twenty-nine and 50/100 dollars to me in hand paid by C. E. McKneely of Houston, Harris county, Texas, and other valuable considerations, have sold, alienated and transferred, and by these presents do sell, alienate and transfer to the said C. E. McKneely the sum of one hundred and forty-two and 90/100 dollars out of the salary or wages due or to become due me from T. & N. O. R. R. Co. for the month of February, A. D. 1910.
“ ‘In case said sum of one hundred and forty-two and 90/100 dollars is not satisfied out of said month’s, salary or wages, then all moneys, claims or demands accruing thereafter to me from said T. & N. O. R. R. Co., as wages or salary, up to said amount of one hundred and fortyrtwo and 90/100 dollars, are to become the property of the said C. E. McKneely, and said C. E. McKneely is hereby authorized and empowered to ask for, collect and sue for same in either my name or its or his own name as he elects, and I hereby direct that said T. & N. O. R. R. Co. pay to said C. E. McKneely the sum of one hundred and forty-two and 90/100 dollars, and if same is not paid to said O. E. McKneely and this assignment is placed in the hands of an attorney to collect the said sum, or if suit- is brought on same, then, in either event, I do assign and transfer to said C. E. McKneely the sum of eight dollars that may be due or to become due as wages, as attorney’s fees and court costs, and said C. E. McKneely is authorized to collect and receipt for same, and if not paid, it or he may recover same by suit.
“ ‘If the above amount is not paid to C. E. McKneely by the party for whom I am now working, then, in addition to the above, I further transfer and assign to said C. E. McKneely any sum of money due, or which may become due me as salary or wages, for any subsequent month or months, within a period of four years from the date of this instrument, from any person, firm or corporation whomsoever for whom I may work, or so much of said sum or sums as may be required to satisfy said sum of one hundred and forty-two and 90/100 dollars, and attorney’s fees and court costs, if any, and the said C. E. McKneely is hereby authorized to collect and receipt .for same, and said receipt shall be absolutely binding and conclusive upon me.
“ ‘Witness my hand at Houston, Texas, this the 16th day of February, A. D. 19X0.
his .
Odine X Armstrong, mark
“ ‘Witness: O. E. McKneely, Josio Matheny.’
“The answer of McKneely set out this assignment, and claimed said wages under the paragraph of said instrument above set out, which provides: ‘If the above amount is not paid to G. E. McKneely by the party for whom I am now working, then, in addition to the above, I further transfer and assign to said O. E. Mc-Kneely any sum of money due, or which may become due me as salary or wages, for any subsequent month or months, within a period of four years from date of this instrument, from any person, firm or corporation whomsoever for whom I may .work, or so much of said sum or sums as may be required to satisfy said sum of one hundred and forty-two and 90/100 dollars, and attorney’s fees and court costs, if any, and the said O. E. McKneely is hereby authorized to collect and receipt for same, and said receipt shall be absolutely binding and conclusive upon me.’
“No facts are alleged in the answer showing or tending to show that at the time the agreement was made it was contemplated by the parties thereto that appellee would enter the service of the Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company. The trial court held that this portion of the assignment was void, and sustained a general demurrer to said answer.
"At a former day 'of this term we affirmed the judgment of the trial court holding ‘that the assignment of wages under which appellant claims was void as to any wages thereafter earned by appellee in any other employment than that in which he was engaged at the time the assignment was executed.’
“The question presented is one of public importance, and we have'deemed it wise to certify for your decision the question:
“Did we err in the holding above set out?”

As to the subsequent employer, Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company, the language of the assignment contract covers no wages having, at its date, any existence, either actual or potential. It is not even shown that, in making the contract of assignment, any subsequent employment of the assignor by any particular employer was in contemplation of the parties. As related to the facts and issues of the case at bar, the above-quoted former holding of the Court of Civil Appeals was correct. McDavid v. Phillips, 100 Tex. 73, 94 S. W. 1131; Richardson v. Washington, 88 Tex. 339, 31 S. W. 614.

The equitable doctrine concerning mortgage liens, as announced in those cited cases, should be held applicable to contracts assigning future wages growing out of employment in contemplation of the parties to the assignment contract, but we do not think that its scope should be extended further. See, also, Railway v. Woodring, 116 Pa. 513, 9 Atl. 58; Bell v. Mulholland, 90 Mo. App. 612; Heller v. Lute, 254 Mo. 704, 164 S. W. 123, L. R. A. 1915B, 192; Kane v. Clough, 36 Mich. 436, 24 Am. Rep. 599; Twiss v. Cheever, 2 Allen (Mass.) 40; Herbert v. Bronson, 125 Mass. 475; Eagen v. Luby, 133 Mass. 543; Mulhall v. Quinn, 1 Gray (Mass.) 105, 61 Am. Dec. 415; Kennedy v. Tiernay, 14 R. I. 530; Bank v. Kimberlands, 16 W. Va. 592; Cooper v. Douglass, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 416; 5 C. J. 871, § 41. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     