garnishment

Beyond doubt, without the necessity of further personal service of process upon Mrs. Dunlevy, the court of common pleas at Pittsburgh had ample power through garnishment proceedings to inquire whether she held a valid claim against the insurance company, and, if found to exist, then to condemn and appropriate it so far as necessary to discharge the original judgment. Although herself outside the limits of the state, such disposition of the property would have been binding on her. ... It has been affirmatively held in Pennsylvania that a judgment debtor is not a party to a garnishment proceeding to condemn a claim due him from a third person, and is not bound by a judgment discharging the garnishee ... Former opinions of this court uphold validity of such proceedings upon the theory that jurisdiction to condemn is acquired by service of effective process upon the garnishee.

In Old Practice. A warning to any one for his appearance, in a cause in which he is not a party, for the information of the court and explaining a cause. For example, in the practice of Pennsylvania, when an attachment issues against a debtor, in order to secure to the plaintiff a claim due by a third person to such debtor, notice is given to such third person, which notice is a garnishment, and he is called the "garnishee." In Modern Practice. A writ or process by which money owing to a defendant is attached in the hands of the creditor, and the creditor is required to appear at a designated time, and disclose the nature and extent of the indebtedness. In some sta,tes this process is called "trustee process," in Connecticut "factorizing process," and in New York the term

A warning to any one for his appearance, in a cause in which he is not a party, for the information of the court and explaining a cause. Cowell. Now generally used of the process of attaching money or goods due a defendant in the hands of a third party. The person in whose hands such effects are attached is the gam Uhee, because he is gamiahed, or warned, not to deliver them to the defendant, but to answer the plaintiff’s suit The use of the form ‘'garnishee” as a verb is a prevalent corruption in this country. It is attachment in the hands of a third person, and so is a species of seizure by notice; Beamer v. Winter, 41 Kan. 297, 21 Pac. 251; id., 41 Kan. 596, 21 Pac. 1078. the plaintiff a claim due by a third person to such debtor, it is served on such third person, which notice or service is a garnishment, and he is called the garnishee. There are garnishees also in the action of detinue. They are persons against whon^ process is awarded, at the prayer of the defendant, to warn them to come in and interplead with the plaintiff; but in detinue, the defendant cannot have a 8ci. fa. to garnish a third person unless he confess the possession of the chattel or thing demanded. And when the garnishee comes in, he cannot vary or depart from the allegation of the defendant in his prayer of garnishment The plaintiff does not declare de novo against the garnishee; but the garnishee, if he appears in due time, may have oyer of the original declaration to which he pleads. See Brooks, Abr. Detinue. The process of garnishment Is directly founded upon the writ of attachment as by custom of London, as to the history and character of which see Attachment. This writ reached tae effects of the defendant in the hands of third persons. Its effect is simply to arrest the payment of a debt due the defendant, to him, and to compel its payment to the plaintiff, or else to reach personal property in the hands of a third person. It is known in England and in most of the states of the United States as garnishment, or the garnishee process; but in some, as the trustee process and factorizing, with the same characteristics. As affects the garnishees, it is in reality a suit by the defendant in the plaintiff’s name; Moore v. Stainton, 22 Ala. 831; Tunstall v. Worthington, Hempst. 662, Fed. Cas. No. 14,239. Garnishment is an effectual attachment of the defendant’s effects in the garnishee’s hands; Kennedy v. Brent, 6 Cra. (U. S.) 187, 3 L. Ed. 194; Blalsdell v. Ladd, 14 N. H. 129; TUllnghast’s Ex’rs v. Johnson, 6 Ala. 514; Bryan v. Lashley, 13 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 284; Hacker v. Stevens, 4 Mc Lean 535, Fed. Cas. No. 5,887; Beamer v. Winter, 41 Kan. 297, 21 Pac. 251; id., 41 Kan. 596, 21 Pac. 1078. It is essentially a legal remedy; and through it equities cannot be settled between the defendant and the garnishee; Harris v. Miller, 71 Ala. 26; Hoyt v. Swift, 13 Vt. 129, 37 Am. Dec. 586; Webster v* Steele, 75 111. 544; Perry V. Thornton, 7 R. I. 15; Massachusetts Nat. Bank v. Bullock, 120 Mass. 86; Sheedy V. Bank, 62 Mo. 17, 21 Am. Rep. 407. The plaintiff, through it, acquires no greater rights against the garnishee than the defendant has, except in cases of fraud; and he can hold the garnishee only so long as he has, in the attachment suit, a right to enforce his claim against the defendant; Price v. Higgins, 1 Lltt (Ky.) 274; Harris v. Ins. Co., 35 Conn. 810; Waldron v. Wilcox, 13 R. I. 618; Richardson v. Lester, 83 111. 66. No judgment can be rendered against the garnishee until judgment against the defendant shall have been recovered; Housmans v. Heilbron, 23 Ga. 186; Washburn v. Mining Co., 41 Vt an Indebtedness to the defendant, or the possession of personal proi)erty of the defendant capable of being seized and sold under execution: Maine Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Weeks, 7 Mass. 438; Rundlet v. Jordan, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 47; Haven v. Wentworth, 2 N. H. 93; Hutchins v. Hawley, 9 Vt 295; Walke V. Mc Gehee, 11 Ala. 273. And to be a subject of garnishment, the claim must be one for which the principal defendant can maintain an action at law, if due at the time or to become due thereafter; Farwell v. Chambers, 62 Mich. 3i6, 28 N. W. 859; Edney v. Willis, 23 Neb. 66, 36 N. W. 300. The existence of such indebtedness, or the possession of such property, must be shown affirmatively, either by the garnishee’s answer or by evidence aliunde; Porter v. Stevens, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 530; Lomerson v. Huffman, 25 N. J. L. 625; Cameron V. Boyle, 2 G. Greene (la.) 154; Hunt v. Coon, 9 Ind. 537; Reagan v. R. R., 21 Mo. 30. The demand of the defendant against the garnishee, which will justify a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the garnishee, must be such as would sustain an action of debt, or indebitatus assumpsit; Hall v. Magee, 27 Ala. 414. A non-resident of the state in which the attachment is obtained cannot be held as garnishee, unless he have in that state property of the defendant’s in his hands, or be bound to pay the defendant money, or to deliver him goods, at some particular place in that state; Nye v. Llscombe, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 263; Jones V. Winchester, 6 N. H. 497; Baxter v. ' Vincent, 6 Vt. 614; Miller v. Hooe, 2 Cranch, C. C. 622, Fed. Cas. No. 9,573; Lovejoy v. Albee, 33 Me. 414, 54 Am. Dec. 630; Cronin v. Foster, 13 R. I. 196. A debt may be attached in any state where the debtor can be found if the law of the forum authorize attachments; Harvey v. Ry. Co., 60 Minn. 405, 52 N. W. 905, 17 L. R. A. 84. The right to garnish debts due to non-residents payable in a foreign jurisdiction has given rise to much conflict in state courts. The question turns on the doctrine that a debt has a situs and the difference of opinion is as to where it is. Some courts hold that it is at the domicil of the creditor of the garnishment; Nat Bank of Wilmington & Brandywine V. Furtlck, 2 Marv. (Del.) 35, 42 Atl. 479, 44 L. R. A. 115, 69 Am. St Rep. 99; Louisville & N. R. Co. V. Nash, 118 Ala. 477, 23 South. 826, 41 L. R. A. 331, 72 Am. St. Rep. 181; High v. Padrosa, 119 Ga. 649, 46 S. E. 869; Glower v. Varnish Co., 120 Ga. 983, 48 S. B. 855; Central of Georgia Ry. Ck). v. Brinson, 109 Ga. 364, 34 S. B. 697, 77 Am. St Rep. 382; Bullard v. Chaffee, 61 Neb. 83, 84 N. W. 604, 51 L. R. A. 716. In the decisions to this effect it is sometimes admitted that “Hiis fiction always yields to laws for attaching the property of a non-resident, because such laws necessarily assume that the T. Lang, 127 Mo. 242, 29 S. W. 1010, 27 L. R. A. 661, 48 Am. St Rep. 626. In other cases it Is held that statutes and the custom of London may, and often do, for the purpose of garnishment give the debt a situs at the domicil of the debtor; Chicago, B. I. & P. B. Co. V. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 17 Sup. Ct. 797, 43 L. Ed. 1144; King v. Cross, 175 U. S. 896, 20 Sup. Ct 131, 44 L, Ed. 211; Swedish* American Nat Bank of Minneapolis y. Bleecker, 72 Minn. 383, 76 N. W. 740, 42 L. B. A. 283, 71 Am. St. Bep. 492; Douglass v. Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. 209, 33 N. B. 938, 20 L. R. A. 118, 34 Am. St Rep. 448; Lancashire Ins. Co. V. Corbetts, 165 111. 692, 46 N. E. 631, 36

A warning to a person in whose another are attached, not to pay the money fendant the property of the defendant in and answer the plaintiffs suit In old English law. A warning; a furnishing one for his appearance, for the better cause; a warning or summons to a party court instruction on any matter.

In the process of atto pay the money or deliver the property of the defendant in his hands to him, but to appear and unswer the plaintifi’s suit. Drake, Attachm. § 451. - A. “garnishment,” as the word is employed in this Code, is process to reach and subject money or effects of a-defendant in attachment, or in 4 judgment or deeree, or in a pending suit commenced in the ordinary form, in the possession or under the control of a third person, or debts owing such defendant, or liabilities to him on contracts for the delivery of personal property, or on contracts for the payment of money which may be discharged by the delivery of personal property, or on a contract payable in personal property; and such third person is called the “garnishee.” Code Ala. 1886, § 2994. Garnishment isa proceeding to apply the debt due by a third person to a judgment defendant, to the extinguishment of that judgment, or to appropriate effects belonging to a defendant, in the hunds of a third person, to its payment. 4Ga. 393, Also a warning to any one for his appearance, in a cause in which he is nota party, for the information of the court and expiaining acause. Covell.

[L. Fr. garnisiement, garnement, from garnir, to warn or furnish.] In old English law. A warning; a furnishing. A warning given to one for his appearance, for the better furnishing the court and cause. Cowell. Blount. A warning or summons to a party to appear and give the court instruction on any matter. Crabb's Hist. 422. In the old action of detinue of charters, the defendant might say that the charters were delivered to him by the plaintiff and another upon certain conditions, and pray that the other might be warned to plead with the plaintiff whether the conditions were performed or not; the object of the warning or garnishment thus prayed for being, to furnish the court with all parties to the action, so that it might the more advantageously determine the cause. Termes de la ley. Cowell. Blount. It was nearly allied to the proceedings in interpleader. 3 Reeves' Hist. 448. The definition of Cowell, above given, is intended to embrace both the significations of garnishment.

A warning to any one for his appearance, in a cause in which he isnot a party, for the information of the court, and explaining a cause. For example, in the practice of Pennsylvania, when an attachment issues against a debtor in order to secure to the plaintiff a claim due by a third person to such debtor, notice is given to such third person, which notice is a garnishment, and he is called the garnishee.