Thomas v. Gibbons
This text of 15 N.W. 593 (Thomas v. Gibbons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
— The question presented arises upon the construction of section 2975 of the Code. The garnishee is re[51]*51quired not to pay any debt dne or thereafter to become due. As to the meaning of the words “debt due” there can be no doubt. The question is as to the' meaning of the words “ debt thereafter to become due.” The plaintiff contends that the word debt, as used, is not restricted to a debt then exist-. ing, but may also mean any debt which may thereafter originate. Rut a debt which has yet to originate cannot properly, we think, be said to be a debt which is to become due. Of such a debt nothing can- properly be predicated. The words “to become due” are set over against the word “due,” and like it are used to deseribe the word debt, which must mean a subsisting debt. Huntington v. Risdon, 43 Iowa, 517. We think that the court correctly refused to charge the garnishee for a debt which had no existence at the time of the garnishment.
Aeeirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 N.W. 593, 61 Iowa 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-gibbons-iowa-1883.