delivered the opinion of the court.
This is а garnishment action wherein the judgment against the garnishee defendant was vaсated because of a jurisdictional defect, three years and ten mоnths after it was entered. The plaintiffs appeal from the order vacаting the judgment.
The garnishee defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal, which was tаken with the case, is denied.
In June 1958, the plaintiff, Dale Jewelers, Inc., judgment creditоr of Robert Walker, filed a garnishment proceeding against Morton Balch, doing business as Balch Realty Management Co. Summons was issued and served. Morton Balch filed no appearance and a default judgment in garnishment was entered against him in favor of Walker, for the use of Dale Jewelers in the amount of $307.25. In February 1962, Balch moved to vacate the judgment for the reason that no affidavit in garnishment was filed at the commencement of the proceeding.
The рarties agree that the affidavit was not in the court files at the time of the motion, that there
The plaintiff filed an answer to the motion of thе garnishee defendant to vacate the judgment and attached to the аnswer were the affidavits of the plaintiff’s attorney, his law clerk and a deputy clerk of the Municipal Court. The purport of these affidavits is that the garnishment affidavit either was filed or must have been because of the extensive experience of the attorney in garnishment cases, his unvarying routine in these cаses, the uniform care used by his office staff, the procedure in the officе of the bailiff of the court and the practice of the Municipal Court Clеrk not to issue a garnishment summons without the filing of an affidavit in garnishment. Also attached tо the answer were receipts issued to the attorney by the bailiff for severаl writs, and by the clerk for seventeen garnishments which had been filed at the same timе as the instant case. Among these was listed the number of the instant case.
Imprеssive as these documents are, they are not a substitute for the original affidаvit and they are not a substitute for an authenticated copy of the original affidavit, if the original was filed and was later lost or misplaced. At best, they only show that an affidavit was probably filed; they would not place in the court record the contents of the affidavit.
No attempt was made by the plaintiff to filе a copy of the missing affidavit, which conld have been done under rule 1, section 47 of the Rules of the Municipal Court. The nearest approach was a motion to correct the record by correcting the half sheet. The motion stated:
“That through omission, error and mistake of the Clerk of the Municipаl Court, the Clerk’s Office failed to stamp on the ‘Half-Sheet’ receipt of the affidavit for garnishment and the ‘Half-Sheet’ should be corrected to so show such document was filed.”
If this motion had been allowed it would have availed the рlaintiff nothing. A half sheet is not part of the official court record.
The court correctly denied this motion to correct the record and properly vacated the judgment.
The garnishment defendant complains of the order of the court making William Zimmerman an additional party plaintiff. No cross-appeal was taken by the defendant and the issue will not be considered.
The order of the Municipal Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.