
    First National Bank of Newton v. Perry.
    Garnishment: mortgage or personal property. Where the answer of a garnishee merely shows that he holds a mortgage on personal property of the debtor, which is in the possession of the latter, and the value of which is not shown, the, garnishee should be discharged.
    
      Appeal from Jasper District Qourt.
    
    Wednesday, July 27.
    In this, case it appeared, from the answer of the garnishee, that he was the mortgagee of personal property of defendants, and that it was in their possession.
    The garnishee was discharged. The plaintiff appeals, and assigns the discharge of the garnishee as error. The, value of the property did not definitely appear, or was not shown.
    
      OI arle <& Ryan for the appellant.
    
      Winslow <& Wilson for the appellees.
   Williams, J.

The judgment is affirmed on the authority of Curtis v. Raymond Bros. & Co., ante, 52. The majority of the court desire that it be noted that they do not think this conflicts with the reasoning in Torbert v. Hayden, 11 Iowa, 435.

In this opinion I do not concur The rule in the case at bar does not conflict with the rule established in Torbert v. Hayden, but it does with dicta contained in that opinion.

Affirmed.  