27 Iowa 280 | Iowa | 1869
The instruction of the court in regard to the effect of the proceeding of garnishment is erroneous. That proceeding, pleaded as a defense, was not matter in bar of plaintiff’s right to recover, but in abatement only. The pendency of the garnishment proceeding did not discharge defendant from the debt. The cause qf action was in no
It may be properly so pleaded under Eev. § 2969, and the issue upon such a defense should be put to the jury, so that their verdict and the judgment thereon may be distinguished from those rendered upon matter pleaded in bar. Eev. § 3121.
Other objections presented in the assignment of errors are urged in the argument of plaintiff’s counsel. Their consideration is not necessary, because, for the reasons above given, the judgment of the District Court must be
Eeversed.