Opinion by
. In a writ of attachment execution, summoning William D. Gordon, secretary of banking, in possession of the United Security Trust Company, as garnishee, plaintiff caused to be inserted in the writ the words that the defendant was “also known and trading as State House *277 Restaurant, and......аs State House Restaurant, Inc.” This is an unusual but not illegal insertion; its purрose is to give to the garnishee record notice that debts due to defendant, under those names, have been attached, as ordinarily would be done, where no such insertion appeared in the writ, by a formal notice from plaintiff or his counsel to the. garnishee or its counsel. The garnishee was duly served аnd appeared to the proceedings, and makes no objection to the form of the writ.
State House Restaurant, Inс., does object, however, and, because thereof, filеd a petition and obtained a rale “to show cause why the attachment should not be stricken from the record.” To the рetition, plaintiff filed an answer setting up countervailing facts; petitioner ordered the case down for a hearing upоn petition and answer; the court below dismissed the petition, and petitioner appealed. The order is right.
The effeсt of appellants so ordering the case for a heаring is thus stated by us in Kelly v. International Clay Products Co.,
Considered thus, the relevant facts here are that defendant was carrying on business under the name of the State House Restaurant, which was registered by him under the Fictitious Names Act of June 29, 1923, P. L. 979. In that name, he had a deposit account with the United Seсurity Trust Company at the time the judgment in this case was entered; eleven days later he voluntarily transferred the account to petitioner, “without consideration,” defendant and his family owning, at thаt time, ninety-nine per cent of the stock of petitioner.
*278 Undеr such circumstances, it would have been grave error for thе court below to have ruled otherwise than as it did. Plaintiff had and hаs the right to have determined whether or not that transfer to petitioner “without consideration” was in fraud of plaintiff’s right as a crеditor. This can be done upon the trial of an issue in the attaсhment proceeding, or, if the parties agree, by the cоurt or auditor on the settlement and adjustment of the account, to be filed by the secretary of banking, of the funds collected by him from the assets of the United Security Trust Company. The latter cоurse is preferred by the secretary, as appears frоm his answers to interrogatories in the attachment procеeding, but either will suffice, so far as the law is concerned.
The order of the court below is affirmed at the cost of appellant.