McDonald v. Vinnett
| Decision Date | 20 November 1883 |
| Citation | 17 N.W. 319,58 Wis. 619 |
| Parties | MCDONALD v. VINNETT, GARNISHEE, ETC. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Chippewa county.
October 21, 1881, the plaintiff recovered judgment in the municipal court of Chippewa county against one William Ferguson. May 13, 1882, execution in due form was issued on such judgment by the municipal judge, and placed in the hands of a constable for collection. On the same day (on proper affidavit) the constable issued a garnishee summons to the respondent, Vinnett, returnable before the municipal judge, June 13, 1882, and served the same on him, and also on the execution debtor. The garnishee failed to appear on the return-day of such summons, and thereupon the municipal judge rendered judgment against him on the same, June 13, 1882, for the full amount of the original judgment against Ferguson, and for costs, amounting in all to nearly $400. The garnishee, Vinnett, thereupon, by writ of certiorari, removed the proceedings and judgment against him to the circuit court for review, and that court reversed the judgment of the municipal court. The plaintiff appeals to this court from the judgment of reversal.Arthur Gough, for appellant, William McDonald.
Bingham & Pierce and Hollan Richardson, for respondent, Bruno Vinnett, garnishee, etc.
The statute under which the garnishee summons was issued (Rev. St. § 3700) is imperative that such summons shall be made returnable on the return-day of the execution. The execution was in the form prescribed in sections 3682 and 3683. It commanded the officer to collect the amount specified in it and return the same to said judge “ within thirty days,” etc. The process was issued and put in the hands of the constable, May 13th. Excluding that day from the computation, and the return, to be within 30 days, must have been made on June 12th, which is the thirtieth and last day allowed. The language of the statute gives no support to the position, very ingeniously maintained by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, that the officer has the full 30 days in which to collect, and may make his return on the thirty-first day. The mandate to him is both to collect and make return within 30 days. The return-day of the execution was, therefore, June 12th, 1882, and the garnishee summons should have been made returnable on that day. The authority to institute and prosecute garnishee proceedings is entirely statutory, and unless the requirements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commercial Inv. Trust, Inc. v. William Frankfurth Hardware Co.
...the garnishee, the purpose of which is to subrogate the plaintiff to the rights of the defendant against the garnishee. McDonald v. Vinette, 58 Wis. 619, 17 N. W. 319;Morawitz v. Sun Insurance Office, 96 Wis. 175, 71 N. W. 109, 65 Am. St. Rep. 43; 12 R. C. L. 777. [2] A garnishment, though ......
-
Morawetz v. Office
...entirely statutory, and, unless the requirements of the statutes are complied with, the proceedings cannot be sustained.” McDonald v. Vinette, 58 Wis. 619, 17 N. W. 319. “Property outside of the state is not the subject of garnishment under our statute.” Bates v. Railway Co., 60 Wis. 296, 1......
-
Coda v. Thompson
...to an original notice at any other time than that fixed by law." Padden v. Moore, 58 Iowa, 703, 12 N. W. 724. In McDonald v. Vinette, 58 Wis. 619, 17 N. W. 319, it was held that "the authority to institute garnishee proceedings is entirely statutory, and unless the requirements of the statu......
-
Coda v. Thompson
... ... other time than that fixed by law." Padden v ... Moore, 58 Iowa 703, 12 N.W. 724. In McDonald v ... Vinette, 58 Wis. 619, 17 N.W. 319, it was held that ... "the authority to institute garnishee proceedings is ... entirely statutory, and ... ...