152 P. 880 | Or. | 1915
Opinion by
“If it be rights or shares in the stock of an association or corporation, or interests or profits thereon, then with such person or officer of such association or corporation as this Code authorizes a summons to be served upon”: Id., § 300, subd. 3.
It will thus be seen that a writ of attachment, directed to a particular sheriff, is of no force or effect outside the county of which he is the chief executive and administrative officer: Wade, Attach., § 124.
“Attachmentproceedings,” says Mr. Justice Thayer in Schneider v. Sears, 13 Or. 69, 74 (8 Pac. 841, 843), “are statutory, and unless the statute is strictly pursued, no right is acquired under them.”
To the same effect see, also, Case v. Noyes, 16 Or. 329, 333 (19 Pac. 104); White v. Johnson, 27 Or. 282, 297 (40 Pac. 511, 50 Am. St. Rep. 726).
“A garnishee,” says Mr. Justice Bean in Altona v. Dabney, 37 Or. 334, 336 (62 Pac. 521, 522), “stands in the position of a disinterested stakeholder, and therefore, according to the great weight of authority, cannot waive service of the process by which the property in his hands, or the debt due from him to the principal debtor, is garnisheed. ”
In Barr v. Warner, 38 Or. 109, 111 (62 Pac. 899), it is said:
“A garnishee may waive many irregularities in the notice of garnishment, and by his certificate or answer*229 in response thereto submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court, and thus become in privity with, and in effect a party to, the judgment which has been or may be rendered against his creditor (citing authorities); but, while a garnishee may waive jurisdiction of his person, he cannot, by voluntarily appearing, waive the defendant’s rights, or substitute the latter’s creditor for his own, because that relates to the jurisdiction of the subject-matter, which can be acquired only in the manner prescribed by law.”
To the same effect is the ruling in the case of Fraley v. Hoban, 69 Or. 180, 186 (133 Pac. 1190, 137 Pac. 751), and Price v. The Boot Shop, 75 Or. 343 (146 Pac. 1088).
We conclude, therefore, that the certificates of the attorney in fact and of the general adjuster of the insurance company were insufficient to confer jurisdiction of the subject matter of the debt undertaken to be garnisheed.
For these reasons, the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.