Spears v. Chapman

Garnishment — Proof—Disclosure. A garnishee’s disclosure will not sustain judgment in a justice’s court if it is too ambiguous to show whether any indebtedness exists, or if so, to whom. The garnishee is a witness for the plaintiff, who has the burden- of making out by him a prima facie case.

Cases made after judgment from Wayne. Garnishment. Spears having recovered judgment before a justice for fifty dollars against Charlotte Issler, garnished Chapman and Mrs. Biley, and took judgments against them, from which they appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the judgments. The garnishees’ disclosure showed that although they had bought goods from Mrs. Issler, they did not know whether they were indebted for them to her or to her husband, -who testified for the defendant that he was a grocer, and that his wife, who helped him in the store, never owned the goods. The garnishment proceedings are brought up for review by the Supreme Court upon cases made after judgment. A garnishee cannot be held unless it affirmatively appears from Ms answer and collateral proofs that he is chargeable, Porter v. Stevens 9 Cush. 530; Richards v. Stephenson 99 Mass. 311; Reagan v. Pacific R. R. 21 Mo. 34; Harwell v. Howard 26 la. 381; Smith v. Clarke 9 la. 241; Williams v. Housel 2 la. 154; Driscoll v. Hoyt 11 Gray 404; Loman v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 33 Mich. 65.