Brummagim v. Boucher

In proceedings against a garnishee, it is the duty of the Court simply to render judgment against the garnishee for the amount found due by him to the judgment debtor. An order that the garnishee pay over the money into Court is improper.

Writ or Error to the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, County of Tuba. The plaintiffs in error, Mark Brummagim and John A. Paxton, were garnisheed by the defendants in error in a number of suits against Adams & Co. They were summoned to answer interrogatories touching moneys in their hands belonging to Adams & Co. Their answers disclosed that they had in their hands the sum of $75,000, for which they had issued their certificates of deposit to A. A. Cohen, as Receiver— which sum they supposed belonged to Adams & Co. That the deposit was made on February 28d, 1855, at the time of the suspension of Adams & Co., by persons in the employ of that house; that the certificates had been presented but not paid, owing to the attachments of the defendants in error. The record is very voluminous, but it is only necessary under the decision of the Court upon the writ of srror to state the action of the Court below. After the examination of the plaintiffs in error, and of witnesses, the Court, on the application of the defendants in error, entered an order which, after reciting the previous action of the Court, etc., is in these terms : “Now, therefore, it is ordered that the said Mark Brummagim and John A. Paxton, co-partners as aforesaid, pay forthwith to the Sheriff of Tuba County, California, the aforesaid sum of seventy-five thousand dollars. And the said Sheriff is hereby commanded in the name of the “ People of the State of California,” and in obedience to this order to demand and receive forthwith from the said M. Brummagim and John A. Paxton the full sum of seventy-five thousand dollars, and to receipt to them therefor; and further ordered that the Sheriff is commanded to retain said sum of money for the benefit of the plaintiffs as creditors of Adams & Co., and hold the same subject to the farther order of this Court.” M. Brummagim & Co., refusing to pay the money over to the Sheriff, on application of the defendants in error, an attachment for contempt was issued and Brummagim and Paxton were committed for contempt, whereupon they sued out a writ of error.