56 Iowa 135 | Iowa | 1881
Service of notice was'made upon defendant by publication
The cause was continued as to the garnishee and another writ of attachment was issued and garnishment process was again served upon the railroad company. On the first day of February, 1880, it answered to the secdnd garnishment process, alleging that it is not indebted to the defendant, and was not'when the last process was served .upon it; that the defendant was in the employment of the garnishee at that time and continues therein, and that his earnings to the date of .the service of the last garnishment process, from August 7th, 1879, was $700, which the garnishee paid at the date last mentioned. Judgment was rendered against the garnishee for $271, the amount of plaintiff’s judgment, and interest and costs.
II. It cannot be disputed that, in order to give the court below jurisdiction, there must have been property seized upon the attachment issued in the case, for the reason that the service of notice in the case was by publication. The garnishment of a debt due the defendent, it may be admitted, would be a seizure of property on the attachment. If, therefore, it appears in this case .that a debt due defendant was seized by the garnishment process, the court acquired jurisdiction, but as there was no seizure of property on the attachment, if it appears that there was no seizure of a debt due defendant the court did not acquire jurisdiction.
• It will be observed that the garnishee, in its first answer, shows that when the first attachment and garnishment process was served, it owed defendant nothing. This answer, being un- . contradicted, must be taken as time. There was, then, no debt owing by the garnishee to defendant; the attachment by means of the garnishee process reached and seized nothing. The court, therefore, acquired no jurisdiction by the first attachment. It cannot be claimed that the writ first served would operate to seize and subject debts to become due after the service of the attachment, which seized nothing, neither debts
III. The case is equally plain as to the second attachment. It is shown by the answer of the garnishee, which is not contradicted, that when the second writ and garnishment process were served upon the garnishee he owed defendant nothing; that he had been fully paid for all services he had rendered up to the date of the services of the garnishment process. As in the case of the first writ, the garnishment process last issued seized no debt, for none existed. The court, therefore, acquired no jurisdiction of the defendant and of the garnishee to hold the latter subject to plaintiff’s claim against defendant.
It is our opinion that under the facts of the case the Circuit Court erred in rendering the judgment against the garnishee; it is, therefore,
Reversed.