
    Griggs, Respondent, vs. Docter and others, Appellants.
    
      December 11, 1894
    
    
      January 8, 1895.
    
    
      Injunction against garnishment in another state: Judgment: Recovery of money collected.
    
    1. Residents o£ this state may be restrained by our courts from prosecuting garnishment proceedings commenced by them in a foreign state for the purpose of evading our exemption laws and subjecting to their claim the exempt earnings of another resident of this state.
    
      
      2. The error, if any, in such a case in enjoining the defendants “so-long as the plaintiff remains a resident of this state,” instead of for such time as he, being a resident of this state, provides for the •entire support of a family within the state, was obviated by subsequent words of the judgment limiting the operation of the-injunction to exempt earnings.
    3. It was proper in such a case to adjudge that plaintiff recover a sum which defendants, in violation of the preliminary injunctional order, had collected by the garnishment proceedings.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: I). II. JohNson, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action in equity to enjoin tbe prosecution of garnishment, proceedings in tbe state of Iowa. Tbe plaintiff is a married-, man, with a family dependent upon bim, residing in this-state, and is in tbe employ of tbe Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. Tbe defendants, who are also residents of Wisconsin, brought action against bim in Iowa, and garnished bis exempt earnings in tbe bands of tbe railway company. Pending these proceedings this action was commenced in tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county, and an interlocutory injunctional order was granted and served on tbe defendants, restraining them from collecting any of tbe exempt wages of tbe plaintiff by said garnishee proceedings during tbe pendency of this action. Thereupon tbe defendants released their garnishment proceedings in Iowa, but took judgment in tbe main action, and issued execution thereon, and garnished tbe railway company on tbe execution. Tbe railway company was adjudged by tbe Iowa court to pay $86 (which appeared by their answer to be tbe amount of their indebtedness to tbe plaintiff), and tbe same was applied on tbe defendants’ judgment against tbe plaintiff. Of this amount $60 was exempt under tbe laws of Wisconsin.
    Afterwards this action was tried. There is no bill of exceptions. Tbe court made findings in accordance with the-facts as above stated, and also found that tbe Iowa suit and. garnishment proceedings were proseeuted with intent to evade the exemption laws of Wisconsin, and that the said $60 was levied upon and taken by the defendants in disregard of the injunctional order, knowing it to be exempt, and knowing that such taking was contrary to the injunctional order. Judgment for the plaintiff was rendered —first, perpetually enjoining the defendants from prosecuting any proceeding against the plaintiff outside this state, so long as the plaintiff remains a resident of this state, whereby the earnings of the plaintiff which are exempt under the laws of this state shah be garnished or levied upon in payment of any judgment against the plaintiff; second, for the recovery of the $80, with interest, realized by the defendant upon the Iowa garnishment proceedings; third, for the costs of the action. The defendants appeal.
    Eor the appellants the cause was submitted on a brief signed by Bloodgood, Bloodgood & Kemper, attorneys, and Francis Bloodgood, of. counsel.
    Eor the respondent there was a brief by Henderson <£ Williams, and oral argument by 8. M. Williams.
    
   Winslow, J.

There being no bill of exceptions, the only question presented is whether the pleadings and findings sustain the judgment. Wille v. Bartz, 88 Wis. 424. This question must be answered in the affirmative. The pleadings and findings show, without dispute or exception, that the defendants, in order to evade the exemption laws of the state, commenced garnishment proceedings in a foreign state in order to subject the exempt earnings of a resident of this state to their claims as creditors, and, in defiance of the interlocutory order of the court, actually appropriated $60 of the plaintiff’s exempt wages to the payment of their debt. Why the court should not have administered the relief which it did administer, we are at a loss to perceive. The jurisdiction of equity in actions of this nature is well established. High, Inj. (2d ed.), § 106.

As to injunction against suit in foreign jurisdiction, see note to Thorndike v. Thorndike, 21 L. R. A. 71.— Rep.

It is said that the judgment is erroneous because it enjoins tbe defendants so long as the plaintiff remains a resident of this state, whereas it should be limited to such time as the plaintiff, being a resident of this state, provides for the entire support of a family within the state. If there is anything in this point, the objection is obviated by the subsequent words of 'the judgment, which limit the operation of the injunction to those earnings which are exempt.

That part of the judgment which adjudges the recovery of the $60 which the defendants collected by their garnishment in the Iowa court in disobedience to the preliminary in junctional order, was eminently proper. A court of equity would hardly deserve that name if it turned the plaintiff out of court with a bare injunction, and commanded him to seek his remedy by another action for the' moneys thus wrongfully converted in contempt of an order of the court made in this very action.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.  