47 Ark.] MAY TERM, 1886. 219 Moore & Co. v. Kelley et al. MOORE & CO. V. KELLY ET AL. ATTACHMENT : .Jurisdietion as to garnishee. Since the adoption of the civil code the jurisdiction of the circuit court over the funds in the hands of a garnishee does not depend upon the amount of his indebtedness to the debtor, and it is error to dismiss the garnishee because his indebtedness does not exceed one hundred dollars. APPEAL from Monroe Circuit Court. Hon. M. T. SANDERS, Circuit Judge. H. A. Parker, for Appellants. Appellants claim that in actions of this kind, where an at-t a ch ment is issued and garnishments served on different parties who owe defendant, that the garnishment is only incidental to the main suit between plaintiff and defendant ; and that is even so in judicial garnishment. From tbe time the garnishment is served, the property that ir the garnishee's hands is in the custody of the law, and, as
wa s said by the supreme court of the United States in the case
of Brashears v. West, 7 Peters, 608, "the said garnishee is not at liberty to change the property or effects, or to convert it into
220 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [47 Ark.. Moore & Co. v. Kelley et al. money, or to exercise any acts of ownership over same. In all such cases the garnishee is merely the agent of the court, and is entitled to hold the same until the question of his liability only is determined." Drake on Att., pp. 453, 691, 693. The garnishees have nothing to do with any question as to proceedings, regularity or jurisdiction ; all that is necessary or proper for them to do is to learn whether there is a valid judgment against the defendant or not ; and all this points out very clearly that the garnishment is entirely incidental to the main action between the plaintiff and defendant. From the incipiency of this character of actions they are dual in their nature ; i. e., they may be personal, or they may be against the property of defendant, or both. A garnishment is nothing more than an action against the property of the defendant in the bands of a third person, and is truly termed by Mr. Waples, "an ancillary proceeding ;" and he also terms it an "added incident" to the main suit, and this is clearly the case from the fact that if the main issue or suit between the plaintiff and defendant falls, all garnishments and ancillary proceedings go with it, but the converse is not true. Waples on Attachment pp. 4, 13, 68, 418. This question has been virtually settled by Flynn v. State, 42 Ark., 320. The circuit court had jurisdiction of the main case, and the .-arnishments are but incidents of that suit, re a ardless of the amount named in the writ of garnishment, or the answer of garnishees. COCKRILL, C. J. The appellants brought an action in the Monroe circuit court, on a money demand against Alfred Ow-ens, - and caused an attachment to issue under which D. W. Kelly and W. W. Spence were summoned as garnishees. After the appellants had obtained judgment in personam
47 Ark.] MAY TERM, 1886. 221 Moore & Co. v. Kelley et al. against the defendant, and the attachment had been sustained, the garnishees appeared and answered ; the one that he was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $64 ; the other, $50. When the court was apprised that the indebtedness of each cr arnishee was less than the amount of which circuit courts entertain jurisdiction, an order was made dismissing the garnish-ment proceeding. This was error. When the garnishee has been summoned and appears, after a judgment obtained against the defendant, and discloses that he is indebted to the defendant in an amount then due, it is the duty of the court to enter an order requiring the garnishee to pay the amount of his debt into court, to be applied to the satisfacion of he judgment. Mansf. Dig., secs. 342, 347. The jurisdiction of the court over the fund in the bands of the garnishee is not not dependent upon the amount of his indebtedness. The service of the garnishment upon the defendant's debtor is only an attachment of the Jurisdiction as to garnishee. debt. It is simply a form of levy upon thc defendant's property in the hands of a third person, and the jurisdiction of the court is no more affected by the value of such property, than by the value of specific articles actually seized by the , sheriff under the attachment. Under the system of judicial garnishment which obtained in this state before the adoption of the code of civil procedure, the primary object of the proceeding was to obtain a personal judgment against the garnishee, enforceable by execution, and under that system it was ruled by this court that the proceeding involved all the incidents of a suit, and that the amount claimed of the garnishee was the measure of jurisdiction. Moore v. Woodruff, 5 Ark., 214 ; Woodruff v. Griffith, Ib., 354 ; Tunstall v. Worthington, Hemp. (C. C.), 662. But no judgment against the garnishee can be reached under the code procedure ; it is not instituted to settle disputes
222 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [47 Ark. between the debtor and third persons; that must be done in an ordinary action. The radical difference between the two methods is distinctly pointed out in the case of Giles v. Hicks, 45 Ark., 271. Reverse and remand for further proceedings.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.