Pollard v. Mobile Savings Bank

Citations

• 60 Miss. 946

Syllabus

<p>■Garnishment. Answer. When traverse not necessary. Case in ¿judgment.</p> <p>The Mobile Savings Bank, attaching creditors, summoned in garnishment P. & Oo., as the debtors of the defendants B., Y. & Oo. The garnishees answered admitting an indebtedness not yet due, but stated that they were informed that the debt had been transferred to H., whom they asked to be cited to appear. H. appeared and propounded his claim to the debt under an assignment .anterior to the garnishment. The garnishees then obtained leave, and filed an amended answer in which they stated that at the time of the filing of their original answer they had been informed that the debt due by them to B. Y. & Oo. had been transferred, and that “they had since learned as a fact that such transfer had really been made by B., Y. & Oo. for value before the service of the writ of garnishment upon them, so they saj' upon their baths that they were not indebted to B., Y. & Oo. in any sum whatever.” Thereupon H., the claimant, withdrew his claim, and in open ■court .consented that judgment might be rendered for the amount due in favor of the attaching creditors and judgment was accordingly rendered. The garnishees appealed to this court, contending that their amended answer, not havingbeen traversed by the plaintiff in garnishment, they should have been discharged. Held, that the original and amended answers taken together do not constitute such a denial of indebtedness as would demand a traverse, and when H. withdrew Ms claim the judgment was properly rendered for the attaching creditors.</p>