Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: Markley v. Murphy?180 Ind. 4. pelled to and did pay defendant's claim from the wages due plaintiff from the corporation. Appellant contends the court erred in overruling his demurrer to the complaint, because, as asserted, the law recognizes no cause of action, on the facts averred, and, because the statute (2669 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 584, 664) is void, by reason of violating the provisions of 1, 23, Art. 1, of the Constitution of Indiana, and the 14th amendment of the Federal Constitution. The statute in question 1. (2669 Burns 1908, supra), reads as follows: Whoever, either directly or indirectly, assigns or transfers any claim for debt against a citizen of Indiana for the purpose of having the same collected by proceedings in attachment, garnishment or other process, out of the wages or personal earnings of the debtors, in courts outside of the state of Indiana, when the creditor, debtor and person or corporation owing the money intended to be reached by the proceedings in attachment are each and all within the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Indiana, shall, on conviction, be fined in any sum not less than twenty dollars nor more than fifty dollars. It is a substantial copy of 2163 R. S. 1881. It is claimed that there is no cause of action here because the violation of a criminal act is a public wrong only, and cannot result in the creation of a private, actionable, wrong. In Kestler v. Kern (1891), 2 Ind. App. 488, 28 N. E. 726, the facts alleged were similar to those here averred, and the same questions, (aside from the constitutional one) relating to the sufficiency of the complaint, were there determined, as are here presented. In a learned opinion, by Crumpacker, J., the complaint was held sufficient. The following paragraph, from Cooley, Torts ...