McDaniels v. J. J. Connelly Shoe Co.

Citations

• 30 Wash. 549
• 71 P. 37

Syllabus

<p>GARNISHMENT-ISSUES.</p> <p>Where garnishees answer that they have no property of the principal defendant, a controverting affidavit that they bought a stock of goods in bulk from defendant under circumstances prohibited by statute sufficiently raises an issue, under Bal. Code, § 5409, which provides that, if the plaintiff should not be satisfied with the answer of the garnishee, he may controvert the same by affidavit in writing signed by him stating that he has good reason to believe that the answer of the garnishee is incorrect, and in what particular he believes it is incorrect.</p> <p>CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-SALE OF GOODS IN BULK-RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHT — DUE PROCESS.</p> <p>The act of March 16, 1901 (Laws 1901, p. 222), to regulate the purchase, sale .transfer and incumbrance of stocks of goods, wares or merchandise in bulk, and declaring same void under certain circumstances, is a rightful exercise of legislative power, under the police powers of the state, for the protection of the public and the prevention of frauds among individuals, and hence not a violation of the constitutional prohibition against depriving persons of their property without due process of law, on the ground of restricting the rights of certain individuals to dispose of their property.</p> <p>SAME — CLASS LEGISLATION.</p> <p>An act restricting retail merchants from transferring their stocks of merchandise in bulk, without making provision for the payment of creditors, is not class legislation within the meaning of the constitution, merely because it does not apply to all owners of property, so long as it applies alike to all persons in the class engaged in retailing merchandise.</p> <p>SAME-RESTRAINT OF TRADE.</p> <p>Such an act is not in restraint of trade, since it does not prevent the sale of stocks of goods in bulk, but merely restricts the application of the proceeds, when stocks are sold in that manner.</p>