Co. The process of foreign attachment in Connecticut, being founded entirely on the statute, the plaintiffs in error must conform strictly to its provisions, when they claim that the debt due to Baker has been taken from them, under the law in question. This principle is too clear in itself, to admit of illustration.

Have the plaintiffs paid the debt to Moore ⅛" Co. in conformity to the provisions of the statute under which it was attached ?

It has been contended, by the counsel for the plaintiffs in error, that their neglect to pay the debt to Moore ⅛* Co. made them liable for the amount of the debt due Baker. It is true, such liability accrued, upon their refusal to pay the money when demanded by the sheriff on Moore ⅛" Co.'s execution : But it is equally true, that such liability, on general principles, cannot prevent Baker from pursuing the recovery of an honest debt ; nor could this liability be pleaded in bar to the original action in favour of the defendants against the plaintiffs in error. The statute has pointed out th& mode, in which this liability shall be enforced, and rendered an effectual bar against Baker’s claim ; and any deviation from this mode, will leave the plaintiffs in error without the protection furnished by the.statute.

This is to be clone, by praying out a scire facias against the Cullers and pursuing it to final judgment. Then the garnishee has the option, of turning' cat the property of; the principal, or paying the debt, when demanded on the execution against the absconding debtor ; or to suffer a judgmeftt against himself upon the seire facias: And as these are the only modes of withdrawing effects from a garnishee, mentioned in the statute, it is believed, that the parties are not at liberty to devise any other, which, in their opinion, wiii do more substantial justice.

But the 6th paragraph of the statute provides for the security of the garnishee against the original creditor, and prescribes tinder what circumstances a payment shall avail him in language too clear to be mistaken. It declares, “ that the “ goods or effects of any absent or absconding debtor, taken “ as aforesaid by firocess and judgment of law, out of the “ hands of his attorney, agent, kc. shall fully acquit and dis- “ charge such attorney, agent, &c. from all and.every action, “ suit, trial, payment and demand whatsoever, that may be “ brought, commenced, or made, by the principal* his exe- “ cutors, or administrators, of or for the same.”(a) The words, “ taken as aforesaid by firocess and judgment of law,” can refer to nothing except the process, by which the effects of an absconding debtor are demanded of the garnishee, by a proper officer ; Or to the judgment against the garnishee on the scire facias. To consider money paid by a subsequent agreement between the factorizing creditor and garnishee, as being “ taken by process and judgment of law” is an absurdity in language.

The liability of the garnishee may have been incurred by “ firocess of law but this does not satisfy the statute : For, to protect the garnishee, the goods or effects must not only be made liable, but “ taken” out of the hands of the garnishee, by “ process and judgment of law.”

The legislature, also, designed in this process, to provide some security and furnish some evidence, that a debt thus withdrawn from an absconding debtor has been applied for his benefit. If the money is paid by the garnishee when demanded on the execution against the absconding debtor, this security is acquired by the known responsibility of the officer authorized to receive it ; and ample evidence of the payment is ftirnished by the officer’s indorsement on the execution, which is presumed to be returned to the Court from which it issued. A similar security is furnished by satisfying the judgment on the scire facias.

In the present case, not a cent has ever been indorsed as applied on Moore IS Co.’s execution against Baker. Indeed, nothing has ever been, at any time, paid on this execution ; and should Moore pursue Baker for the whole amount of his .original demand, and should the latter be fortunate enough Xo discover the private agreement between Moore’s attorney and the Cutlers, it could not be admitted in a court of justice as evidence of any payment whatever—for the note was of a conditional nature, depending for its validity on the issue of the present trial ; and, until after this case is decided, it is totally uncertain, whether the note given by the Cutlers is of any validity.