Cooper v. Schooley

Ohio Court of Appeals

Cooper v. Schooley

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 560

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 1927

DocketNo. 8007

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 560 (Cooper v. Schooley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cooper v. Schooley, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 560 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

VICKERY, J.

Many years ago a judgment was rendered against L. G. Schooley, which judgment had been kept alive by issuance of executions. C. S. Cooper filed his affidavit in proceedings in aid of execution, and made the city of Cleveland a party, claiming that the city owed Schooley some money, he being a member of the City Council. The city answered that it owed Schooley $75.00.

The Cleveland Municipal Court held, in the trial of the action that it is contrary to public policy to permit the attachment or garnishment of a public officer’s salary, and found in favor of Schooley.

In the one case, decided by the Supreme Court on this question, Newark (City) v. Funk, 15 OS. 462, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that where money was earned, it was not against public policy to garnishee an officer’s salary.

One would think that it would be in accordance with public policy to see that public officers did pay their debts, but however that may be, the court in the case supra, under the same statute that exists today, decided that to atr tach the earned salary of a public officer was not contrary to public policy and sustained the attachment.

Judgment reversed and remanded to the Municiapl Court to make the proper judgment.

(Sullivan, PJ., concurs, Levine, J., not participating) .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI