
    KING v. HARRIGAN.
    1. Garnishment — Disclosure by Garnishee — Trial—Time.
    Under section 10610, 3 Comp. Laws, a garnishee has 10 days-after the filing of his oral examination within which to demand a trial of the cause, and a judgment rendered against him before the expiration of that period is erroneous.
    2. Same — Statutes—Strict Construction.
    Garnishee proceedings are harsh, and the statutes authorizing; them must be strictly followed.
    3. Same — Appeal—Record—Questions Presented.
    Where both the disclosure and the oral examination of a garnishee deny liability, and the record on error merely shows, that judgment was rendered against the garnishee after hearing proofs and argument, it cannot be said that the garnishee by appearing and arguing the case waived his right under the statute to 10 days after the filing of his oral examination within which to demand a trial of the cause.
    Error to Lapeer; Smith, J.
    Submitted June 13, 1906.
    (Docket No. 92.)
    Decided July 24, 1906.
    Garnishment proceedings by Robert King against James Harrigan as garnishee of Richard Burden. There was judgment for plaintiff, and the garnishee brings error.
    Reversed.
    
      John Loughnane and Geer, Williams & Halpin, for appellant.
    
      Stickney & Reed, for appellee.
   Grant, J.

This case was before the court on a motion to dismiss the writ of error 142 Mich. 477. A full statement of the case and of the issues involved is there made, and needs no repetition here. On the same day that the oral examination of the garnishee defendant was filed the-court below rendered a judgment against him for the amount of the judgment against the principal defendant. The defendant under the statute (3 Comp. Laws, § 10610) was entitled to 10 days thereafter to demand a trial of the cause. Garnishee proceedings are harsh, and the statutes authorizing them must be strictly followed.

It is urged that the defendant waived this 10-day provision by appearing and arguing the case at the time the •disclosure was filed. What the argument against the entering of the judgment was at that time the record fails to show, and counsel do not agree upon it. Both the disclosure and the oral examination deny liability. The judgment recites that “ the court, having heard the proofs ■offered and the argument of counsel for the respective parties, judgment is rendered,” etc. That is all the record shows. It cannot be construed into a waiver of the right conferred by the statute to demand a trial.

Judgment reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings.

Blair, Montgomery, Ostrander, and Moore, JJ., (concurred.  