
    Edward W. Markham v. James Gehan et. al.
    
      Garnishment.
    
    A demand due in part only to the principal defendant cannot be garnished.
    Case made from Kent.
    Submitted October 10.
    Decided October 30.
    Assumpsit and trover appealed from before a justice. The action was brought by Markham against Thomas J. Fitzgerald, a building contractor; -and James Gehan, William Farrell and Denis McCarthy, a building committee who had contracted with him, were brought in as garnishees. . Their disclosure showed that the contract was made with Fitzgerald and J. W. GriswiPld jointly. The garnishees were discharged with a judgment for costs in their favor.
    
      Frank G. Holmes for plaintiff.
    The relation between joint contractors maybe shown in order to show that a particular claim may be enforced as against only one of them as garnishee, Leighton v. Heaggerty, 21 Minn., 42.
    , S. B. Horne and A. T. McBeynolds for defendants.
   Cooley, J.

It appears in the record beyond^ any controversy that the demand owing by defendants, and which the plaintiff seeks to recover from them as garnishees, was due not to the principal defendant alone, but to him and another person with whom he was joint contractor for building a church. There was therefore no ground for a recovery, and the judgment in favor of defendants must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.  