Error to the Circuit Court of Warren County.

Hon. Geo. F. BrowN, Judge.

On the 7th day of December, 1869, the defendants in error, Levi Simon & Co., brought an action of assumpsit in the circuit court of Warren couiffy against Caroline Loewenhaupt, ■as executrix of Isaac Loewenhaupt, deceased, to which she pleaded non-assumpsit, and on the 29th day of October, 1873, there was a judgment for the plaintiffs for the sum of $2,020.87 and costs, to be levied de bonis testatoris.

On the 9th day of June, 1874, a writ of garnishment was issued upon tins judgment, against the plaintiff in error and others, returnable to the November term, 1874, which writ appears to have been personally served upon the plaintiff in •error on the 13th day of the same month.

The record shows no suggestion or affidavit by the judgment plaintiffs for the writ of garnishment, as required by § 874 of the Code; and the writ, as issued, recites the judgment upon which it is founded as being for $220.87, instead ■of $2,020.87.

On the 24th day of November, 1874, judgment by default was rendered against the plaintiff in error, Louis Hoffman, as .garnishee of the judgment debtor, Caroline Loewenhaupt, executrix, etc., upon this garnishment summons, for the full ■amount of the plaintiffs’ demand, to wit, “for the sum of $2,020.87, with interest from the 28th day of October, 1873, ■at the rate of 6 per centum per annum, the same being the .amount of the judgment,” etc., in favor of Levi Simon & Co. ■against said Caroline Loewenhaupt, executrix.

There was also judgment, in the same entry, against the •other garnishees, on answer filed.

The plaintiff in error complains of the rendition of the judgment against Mm in this state of the record, and brings-bis writ of error to reverse the same, and assigns for error :

1. That the court bad no jurisdiction to render any judgment against him.

2. That, if it had jurisdiction, it erred in rendering -judgment against him without the affidavit and suggestion required by law.

3. That, if it had jurisdiction, it erred in rendering judgment for more than $220.87, the amount mentioned in the-garnishment writ.

The judgment in this case against the garnishee is void for want of jurisdiction in the court. It is an original action against the garnishee, and summary as to him and the judgment debtor. The garnishee is bound by his duty to his creditor and safety to himself to see that the law is pursued, and that there are no irregularities in the proceedings and judgment against him. Erwin v. Heath, 50 Miss., 795 ; Jeffries v.. Harvey, 38 ib., 97 ; Ford v. Hurd, 4 S. &M., 683.

As to the two-fold character of the proceeding : Holman v. Fisher, 49 Miss., 476. The filing of the affidavit is an essential prerequisite. Code of 1871, § 874. An attachment issued without the affidavit is void. Ford v. Woodward, 2 S. & M.,. 260; Ford v. Hurd, 4 ib., 683; Jeffreys v. Dancy, 44 Miss., 693.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress