Field v. McKinney

Citations

• 60 Miss. 763

Syllabus

<p>3. Injuuction. Against judgment at law. Two judgments for same debt. Laches. Case in judgment.</p> <p>M., having teen garnished in an attachment suit by !F. against B., and having admitted an indebtedness to the defendant, a judgment was rendered against him for the amount admitted to be due. J£. had, before the garnishment, become, the owner of the debt due byM. to B., and after the judgment in garnishment, he brought an action and recovered a judgment against M. for the same indebtedness. M. then filed a bill for an injunction against the execution of the judgment in garnishment on the ground that at the time that judgment was rendered he had no notice that his debt had been assigned to K. The proof shows that M. did have notice of such assignment before the judgment in garnishment was rendered, and had ample opportunity to resist the rendition of that judgment. Held, that although it is a great hardship on M. to have to pay the same debt twice, his misfortune is the result of his own fault, and he is not entitled to an injunction against the judgment obtained through his inattention and neglect.</p> <p>2. Same. Suit by garnishee to enjoin judgment. Objection to bond in attachment.</p> <p>Where, in a suit in attachment, it is objected that the bond is not good because the only surety upon it is a bank, which has no authority under its character to become a surety, the bond may be amended, under sect. 2464 of the Code of 1880; but if the defendant, having been in due time personally served with process, make no objection to the' bond, a garnishee, who has no right to object to the regularity of the proceedings in so far as they relate to the judgment against thedefe ndant, cannot, after the rendition of such judgment object to the insufficiency of the attachment-bond as a ground for injunction against a judgment rendered against himself as a garnishee.</p>