
    Obadiah Matheny vs. M. A. Galloway.
    A garnishee, against whom a judgment upon scire facias, after judgment nisi, has been rendered final, cannot object to mere irregularities in the judgment against the principal debtor in the attachment, as whose debtor he is garnisheed.
    Therefore where G. sued out an attachment against D. upon an open account, and summoned M. as a garnishee, and G. took a judgment final by default, without a writ of inquiry, against D., and took a judgment nisi 
      against M. before the judgment final against D., and afterwards upon scire facias thereon executed, and no answer, a judgment final against M. ; the latter cannot object that the judgment final against D. was irregular, or that the judgment nisi was rendered against Mm before the judgment final against D.
    Under the statute of this state (How. & Hutch. 553, sec. 24), when a garnishee fails to answer, and a judgment nisi is taken afterwards upon scire facias, and he still fails to answer ; the plaintiff may take a judgment against him for the whple amount of his judgment against his principal debtor, the interest thereon, and the costs as well of the original judgment as of the scire facias.
    
    Under the statute (How. & Hutch. 558, sec. 43), a garnishee is only allowed reasonable satisfaction out of the effects in his possession, in the event of his attendance. He is not allowed any thing where a judgment nisi has been rendered, and he fails to appear and answer upon a scire facias duly served.
    IN error from the circuit court of Kemper county; Hon. A. B. Dawson, judge.
    On the 8th of August, 1845, M. A. Galloway sued out an attachment for $62-19 against the effects of Peter A. Douglass, who had removed out of the state, so that process could not be served on him; and at the same time summoned Obadiah Ma-theny and others, as garnishees.
    In September, 1845, Galloway filed his declaration upon an open account, and at March term, 1846, took an order of publication against Douglass, for four weeks in the East Mississippian. At the March term, 1841, the proof of publication was filed, and a judgment and writ of inquiry ordered, to be executed at next term.
    At the September term, 1847, a judgment ?iisi was taken against Matheny and another garnishee, for #76-41; and a scire facias was ordered.
    At the March term, 1848, on the 13th of the month, a judgment final, without executing the writ of inquiry, was taken against Douglass, for $79-33 and costs; and at the same term, on the 14th of the month, a judgment final by default on the scire facias, returned executed, was taken against Matheny and the other garnishee.
    
      Matheny sued out this writ of error.
    
      Guión and Baine, for plaintiff in error.
   Mr. Justice ThacheR

delivered the opinion of the court.

Matheny was summoned as a garnishee in an attachment sued out by Galloway against Douglass. A writ of inquiry was directed in the suit of Galloway against Douglass, but not executed, and a final judgment was rendered against Douglass for the amount of the account for which the action was instituted. Subsequently, a judgment nisi having previously been entered against Matheny, and he having failed to make defence or answer upon the service of a scire facias, an execution was awarded against him, for the amount of the indebtedness of Douglass to Galloway, with interest' from the date of the rendition of the judgment against Douglass, in favor of Galloway, together with all costs.

The chief objections taken by Matheny, are to irregularities in the proceedings at law, by Galloway against Douglass. Galloway’s judgment is very likely erroneous, but it is certainly not void, and so long as Douglass acquiesces in it, Matheny cannot complain of it. We cannot look at mere errors in Galloway’s judgment. Whitehead v. Henderson, 4 S. & M. 704; Ford v. Hurd, Ibid. 683.

In examining the judgment against Matheny, we find it was awarded against him for the amount of Galloway’s judgment against Douglass, with interest from the date of its rendition, and all costs. The statute directs, upon scire facias being duly executed and returned, if the garnishee shall fail to appear and discover accordingly, a confirmation of the judgment nisi, and an award of execution for the plaintiff’s whole judgment and costs. H. & H. 653, sec. 24. The statute, we think, goes upon the supposition that where a garnishee fails to appear and answer upon service of scire facias, he is indebted to the defendant in the full amount of plaintiff’s judgment, the interest that may have accrued thereon, as an incident of that judgment, and the costs which have accrued by the original action, as well as those of the scire facias. All these amounts appertain to the plaintiffs “judgments and costs.” In this case it appears that a judgment for some amount is entered up against Matheny as the garnishee. A garnishee is allowed reasonable satisfaction out of the effects in his possession, only in the event of his attendance. H. <fc H. 558, sec. 43. There is no provision making allowance to a garnishee, against whom a judgment nisi has been entered, and who fails to appear and answer upon a scire facias duly served.

The judgment must be affirmed.  