Van Moorhem v. Roche Harbor Lime & Cement Co.
| Decision Date | 19 August 1932 |
| Docket Number | 23674. |
| Citation | 169 Wash. 354,13 P.2d 496 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | VAN MOORHEM v. ROCHE HARBOR LIME & CEMENT CO. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, San Juan County; Ed E. Hardin, Judge.
Suit by E. C. Van Moorhem against George W. Woolard and wife, defendants, wherein the Roche Harbor Lime & Cement Company was garnished. From order quashing writ of garnishment, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Samuel R. Buck, of Friday Harbor, for appellant.
Ivan L. Blair, of Friday Harbor, for respondent.
E. C. Van Moorhem commenced an action in the superior court against George W. Woolard and wife for a debt. During the pendency of the action, but prior to any judgment therein, the plaintiff, without executing or filing any bond with his application and affidavit, procured the issuance by the clerk of the superior court of a writ of garnishment against Roche Harbor Lime & Cement Company, a corporation. After the writ was served, it was quashed by order of the court upon motion of the garnishee defendant. The plaintiff has appealed from the order.
The remedy by garnishment is purely statutory. Morris & Co. v. Canadian Bank of Commerce, 95 Wash. 418, 163 P. 1139. 'Garnishment rests wholly upon judicial process, and depends upon the due pursuit of the steps prescribed by law for its prosecution.' Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v. Rogers, 52 W.Va. 450, 44 S.E. 300, 306, 62 L. R. A. 178. 'The statutes commonly make the execution and filing of a bond an essential to the institution of garnishment proceedings, and a failure to file such a bond is fatal.' Garnishment, 28 C.J. 215, § 277. 'A garnishee may move for quashal of the proceedings or his discharge for defects therein or other good cause, particularly if the proceedings, are void for want of jurisdiction.' Garnishment, 28 C.J. 354, 356, §§ 561, 566.
Under the statutes of this state, subdivision 2 of section 680, sections 681 and 683, Rem. Comp. Stat., a bond is required in cases of this kind as a necessity or requisite for the issuance of a writ of garnishment. Liebig v. Liebig, 107 Wash. 464, 182 P. 605.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G.A.C. Trans-World Acceptance Corp. v. Jaynes Enterprises, Inc.
...the issuance of the writ, and, if the bond is not filed, the writ is void and should be dissolved. See Van Moorhem v. Roche Harber Lime & Cement Co., 169 Wash. 354, 13 P.2d 496 (1932); Citizens National Bank v. Pollard, 31 S.W.2d 508 (Tex.Civ.App.1930); 6 Am.Jur.2d 928, Attachments, § 518; ......
-
McAvoy v. Weber
... ... Agency, 165 Wash. 62, 4 P.2d 886; Van Moorhem v ... Roche Harbor Lime & Cement Co., 169 Wash. 354, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Huycke v. James
...by citation of other cases directly in point and by application of governing statutory law. In the case of Van Moorhem v. Roche Harbor Lime & Cement Co., 169 Wash. 354, 13 P.2d 496, a garnishee interposed a motion for dismissal of a writ of garnishment on the ground that the garnishee plain......