
    William H. Smith, Respondent, v. Endicott-Johnson Corporation, Appellant.
    
      Garnishment — constitutional law — validity of statute permitting gar~ nishment of wages.
    
    
      Smith v. Endicott-Johnson Corpn., 199 App. Div. 194, affirmed.
    (Argued November 29, 1922;
    decided December 15, 1922.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 13, 1922, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover judgment from the defendant for the sum of $97.87, with interest and costs, claimed to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff in three separate causes of action, because of failure of the defendant to pay over to the sheriff of Broome county ten per cent of the wages of three judgment debtors as directed-in garnishee executions issued under provisions of section 1391 of the Code of Civil Procedure and served upon the defendant in respect to judgments recovered against them. The defenses as to all three causes of action set up by the answer are: That the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that the papers upon which the garnishee executions were issued were insufficient; that the law is unauthorized and in derogation of the common law; that the law is void as against public policy; that the law is unconstitutional in that it deprives the judgment debtor of his property without due process of law and without notice; that the law is subversive of contracts between employer and employee, and is inequitable in its operation.
    
      Maurice E. Page and Bruce L. Babcock for appellant.
    
      Moe Goldstein for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with, costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  