Miller & Co. v. Mason & Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1879 |
| Citation | 1 N.W. 483,51 Iowa 239 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | MILLER & CO., APPELLEES, v. MASON & CO., GARNISHEES, APPELLANTS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Shelby district court.
The appellants, who are residents of Polk County, were served with garnishee process in a cause pending in Shelby County. Their answer denying indebtedness to the defendant in the action, was controverted in a reply filed by plaintiff, and an issue thereon was thus formed and the cause was docketed for trial. Thereupon the garnishees moved to have the venue of the cause changed to Polk County, on the ground that they resided in that county. The motion was overruled, and from this decision the garnishees appeal.John A. McCall, for appellants.
L. W. Ross, Smith, Carson & Harl, for appellees.
--The only question in this case involves the correctness of the court's ruling in refusing to change the venue of this cause to the county of the garnishee's residence. Garnishment is a proceeding to subject credits of a defendant to seizure upon attachment or execution. It is a part of the proceedings in attachment or execution. Code, § 2975. Proceedings in attachment are auxiliary to the main action, and are to be prosecuted as such. Code, § 2950. The purpose of the proceeding is to subject credits to the satisfaction of the judgment obtained, or to be obtained in the main action. It should therefore remain in the court where the main action is pending. This requirement is necessary for the proper protection of the interest of all parties. It is not usual, if it ever is the case, for a mere auxiliary proceeding to be prosecuted in a court other than the one wherein the main action is pending. It would not be permitted in the absence of express statutory requirement. There is no such a statute in this state. The statute which requires an action brought in a county wherein the defendant does not reside to be transferred to the county of his residence, has no application to the proceedings of garnishment, for the reason that such proceeding is auxiliary in its character as we have pointed ont, and not in an action which may be brought or prosecuted in another court. The garnishee is required to appear to the action wherever, in the state, it may be depending, upon service of process made upon him. Westfall, Hinds & Co. v. Clark, 42 Iowa, 371. The trial of the issue must be had in the court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and person of the garnishee, there being no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Superior Court of Spokane County
...supersedes other statutes requiring certain actions to be brought in a particular county. Thus, notwithstanding the decision in Miller v. Mason, supra, the same court said in Westphal, Hinds & Co. v. Clark, 42 Iowa, 371: 'If the garnishee should be satisfied that he could not obtain a fair ......
- Miller & Co. v. Mason & Co