Empire Car-Roofing Co. v. Macey

Citations

• 115 Ill. 390
• 3 N.E. 417
• 1885 Ill. LEXIS 561

Syllabus

<p>1. Attachment—;judgment upon constructive service—as to amownt. In a suit by attachment, even where there is no personal service or appearance by the defendant, the court may, upon satisfactory proof, enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum claimed in the affidavit for the writ, and accruing interest.</p> <p>2. G-abnishment—how far a gcurnishee may question the judgment against the attachment debtor. In the case of garnishment in a proceeding by attachment, if the judgment against the defendant in attachment is void, it may be attacked by the garnishee; but if the court had jurisdiction, its errors and irregularities can-only be called in question by the defendant in the original attachment proceeding. The errors in the rendition of that judgment are matters which do not concern the garnishee.</p> <p>3. Same—of the pleadings. Where the garnishee in his answer admits an indebtedness from him to the original debtor, but sets up special matter in defence, it is not necessary for the attaching creditor to file a replication specifically denying the matters set up, to defeat a recovery against him. It is sufiacient to file a general replication that the garnishee has not truly answered and disclosed. The statute dispenses with the formality of special pleading.</p> <p>4. Same—answer of garnishee not under oath—as evidence. Where a garnishee has answered under oath admitting his indebtedness, and afterward, in answer to further interrogatories, sets up new matter in avoidance of his liability, not under oath, the answers not under oath are not evidence to prove the facts therein stated.</p>