154 So. 560 | Ala. | 1934
This case has been before this court before,
There can be no question of the fact that the levy of an attachment or the issuance of garnishment gives a lien from the levy of the former and service of the latter and that it ordinarily continues until the final disposition of the case, unless, in the meantime, intercepted or dissolved. Section 8064 of the Code of 1923, however, provides for the giving of a bond by the defendant in double the amount of plaintiff's demand in garnishment suits and dissolves the garnishment when said bond is given, thus in effect, dissolving the lien and substituting the bondsmen. Guilford et al. v. Reeves Co.,
The case of Henry v. McNamara,
The plaintiff having no lien, the plea of discharge of the defendant by the bankrupt court was a complete defense in bar to a judgment against the defendant and likewise to one against the sureties on the bond. Young Co. v. Howe et al.,
It is urged, in brief of counsel, that this case can be distinguished from Young Co. v. Howe et al., supra, because there was an appeal bond in said case and not such as we have here under section 8064. It is sufficient to say, there is no difference in principle as the statute, section 8064, is "conditioned to pay such judgment as may be rendered or ascertained to exist in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant." After the discharge of the defendant, no lawful judgment could be rendered or ascertained against him in favor of the plaintiff.
The rulings of the trial court in overruling the demurrer to the defendant's special plea of bankruptcy, and in sustaining the defendant's replication to said plea, and in giving the general charge for the defendant were *596 free from error and the judgment of the circuit court is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.