Peterson v. Lake Tetonka Park Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1898
• Docket Number: Nos. 11,150 - (95).,s. 11,150 - (95).
• Citation: 72 Minn. 263
• Parties: JAMES PETERSON and Another v. LAKE TETONKA PARK COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

72 Minn. 263

JAMES PETERSON and Another v. LAKE TETONKA PARK COMPANY.

Nos. 11,150 - (95).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 13, 1898.

Appeal by Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company, garnishee, from a judgment of the district court for Le Sueur county, in favor of plaintiff and against the garnishee, for $427.62, entered in pursuance of the order of Cadwell, J. Affirmed.

Albert E. Clarke and Wilbur F. Booth, for appellant.

P. J. Kirwin, for respondents.

START, C. J.

The plaintiffs had judgment against the defendant by default, and upon motion, based upon the judgment against the principal defendant and the garnishee proceedings herein, the trial court ordered judgment against the garnishee, which was entered, and from which it appealed.

1. The appellant claims that there was no valid judgment against the defendant, because there was no proof of the service of the summons. The return of the sheriff shows that he served the summons on the defendant, naming it, by handing to and leaving with George Andrews, the president of said Lake Tetonka Park Company, a corporation, a true and correct copy thereof. It is claimed that proof should have been made that the person with whom the copy was left was in fact an officer of the corporation upon whom service might legally be made. The sheriff's certificate was prima facie evidence of the fact, and the proof of service legally sufficient. A similar objection is made to the proof of service of the garnishee summons on the garnishee, and a further objection that it does not appear that the fees and mileage of the garnishee were paid to the same person to whom the copy of the summons was delivered. The proof of the service was sufficient, and whether the right person received the fees is of no importance, as the garnishee appeared without objection.

2. On the return day of the garnishee summons, the garnishee appeared by its attorney, and offered to file as its disclosure the affidavit of its assistant treasurer stating in general terms that it had no money or effects in its hands or under its control belonging to the defendant and that it was not indebted to the defendant in any sum whatever at the time the garnishee summons was served. Objections were made by the plaintiffs to the affidavit being received on the ground that the garnishee was bound to appear by some officer or agent having knowledge of the facts and answer under oath such questions as might be put to him touching any money, property, or...