
    Vanderploeg & Kuiper and A. U. Thompson, Defendants in Error, v. Ivor Peterson (Defendant), G. A. Selven (Garnishee), Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,721.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Garnishment, § 64
      
      —when payment ly garnishee after attachment is justified. Whore a garnishee had made a contract with the debtor for the painting of a building, and attempted to justify a payment made to the debtor after the service of an attachment writ, because of the fact that such debtor had made an equitable assignment of the amount due him on the contract to the parties furnishing material for the work, evidence that the material man stated that he had to be paid, which the garnishee understood to mean that such material man was holding him liable for the money, was insufficient to show an equitable assignment.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Rooney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 21, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Suit in attachment by Vanderploeg & Kuiper and A. U. Thompson against Ivor Peterson, the attachment writ being served on G-. A. Selven as garnishee. Subsequently the court found that Selven was indebted to Peterson in the sum of $32.08 and judgment against the garnishee was entered, whereupon he brings this writ of error.
    Isaiah Campbell, for plaintiff in error; Herbert E. Herrod, of counsel.
    Harry C. Leemon, for defendants in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Garnishment, § 64 —what will protect garnishee who pays debt after attachment. Where a garnishee made a payment to a debtor after the service of an attachment writ, on a contract for painting a building, claiming that he was justified in so doing because the material man would hold him liable for materials furnished the debtor, but it appeared that the statutory period for filing notice for materials furnished had elapse'd, notice by such material man would not protect the garnishee.  