The defendant in this case has once paid the amount due plaintiff to a creditor of his, whereby plaintiff has had the full benefit of it. The defendant ought not to be required to pay the amount a second time unless guilty of some negligence or wrong toward plaintiff. The finding of facts show that the defendant answered truly and fully every known fact, and also stated that the plaintiff herein, its creditor, claimed to be the head of a family, whereby the debt sought to be garnished would be exempt. The plaintiff herein was a party to the case, and was fully notified of the garnishment proceedings. It was his duty to furnish defendant the information and means to prove the fact, or himself to prove it. Walters v. Wash. Ins. Co., 1 Iowa, 404; Drake on Attachment, §§ 717 and 118, and cases cited; Wood v. Partridge, 11 Mass. 488. The plaintiff having .notice of the garnishment proceedings, and being in effect a party thereto, is bound or concluded by the judgment therein as well as the defendant. It was his privilege and duty, if that judgment was erroneous, to have it set aside or appeal from it. He cannot allow it to stand, and at the same time impeach it collaterally. The garnishee having answered truly and fully and in good faith is entitled to protection. Reversed.
Wigwall v. Union Coal & Mining Co.
37 Iowa 129
Iowa1873Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.