Jones v. St. Ouge

• Decision Date: 14 December 1886
• Citation: 67 Wis. 520,30 N.W. 927
• Parties: JONES AND ANOTHER v. ST. OUGE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

67 Wis. 520

30 N.W. 927

JONES AND ANOTHER

v.ST. OUGE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

December 14, 1886.

Appeal from circuit court, Wood county.

January 20, 1885, Peter St. Ouge commenced an action of replevin against Robert and W. D. Connor, in the circuit court for Wood county, to recover certain logs described. Thereupon the Connors gave the requisite undertaking, with two sureties, and retained possession. Issue being joined in said action, the same was tried in said circuit court. Upon that trial, and June 2, 1885, the jury returned a verdict to the effect that St. Ouge was the owner and lawfully entitled to the possession of the logs; that the Connors unlawfully took, and then unlawfully withheld, such possession from St. Ouge; that the value of said logs was $208.55; that St. Ouge had suffered damages by such unlawful taking and detention in the sum of $5.47, making, altogether, the sum of $214.02. June 17, 1885, judgment was entered upon said verdict with the clerk of said circuit court in favor of St. Ouge, and against the Connors and their sureties, as a money judgment, and the same was docketed with the clerk of said court, June 18, 1885.

This action was commenced in justice's court in favor of said Jones and Nash, and against said St. Ouge, as principal defendant, and the said Connors, as garnishees; and the garnishee process was served on the Connors, June 3, 1885, and on St. Ouge, June 5, 1885. The cause in the justice's court was adjourned, from time to time, until July 31, 1885, when judgment was rendered against St. Ouge; and it was then, among other things, found that the Connors, as garnishees, were indebted to St. Ouge in the sum of $208.55, and it was accordingly ordered by the justice that the Connors, as such garnishees, pay over to the justice, for the benefit of the plaintiffs therein, the sum of $90.65. August 18, 1885, St. Ouge appealed to the circuit court “from the judgment or order rendered and entered” in the action before the justice in favor of the plaintiffs, and against the Connors, as such garnishees, for the amount of damages, and costs stated. On a retrial in the circuit court, the plaintiffs having recovered judgment in the principal action against St. Ouge for $71.25 and costs, and the jury having been waived in the garnishee action, and the cause having been tried by the court, it was found, January 2, 1886, in effect, as matters of fact, (1) that, at the time of the service of the garnishee, the Connors were indebted to St. Ouge in the sum of $208; (2) that such indebtedness existed in the form of a judgment in the circuit court against them and in favor of St. Ouge, docketed June 18, 1885, and recorded in the judgment record. And, as conclusions of law, the court found, in effect, that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover from the Connors, as such garnishees, the sum of $71.27 recovered in said principal action, and also the costs taxed in said action, which aggregate sum, when paid, should be so much paid upon the judgment in favor of St. Ouge and against the Connors. From the judgment entered thereon accordingly, the defendant Peter St. Ouge brings this appeal.

L. P. Powers, for respondents, Jones and another.

J. W. Cochrane and Jones & Sanborn, for appellant, St. Ouge.

CASSODAY, J.

1. The garnishee proceedings were commenced in justice's court. The requisites of the affidavit for garnishment in that court are prescribed by section 3716, Rev. St. The affidavit here conformed to those requirements. This was sufficient to give the justice jurisdiction, without stating the amount of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant over and above all offsets, as required in an affidavit for garnishment in the circuit court by sections 2753, 2768, Rev. St., as amended by chapter 86, Laws 1881, and chapter 286, Laws 1885. An amendment to a particular section of the statute, prescribing a certain practice in the circuit court, does not, by mere implication, amend a different section, prescribing a...