
    Peter Weirich v. William R. Scribner and Frederick A. Potter, garnishees of Joseph Ward.
    
      Ga/mishee’s disclosure.
    
    A garnishee’s disclosure in justice’s court must he explicit in its admissions to warrant judgment.
    Case made from Kent.
    Submitted June 9.
    Decided June 16.
    Garnishment. Plaintiff had judgment.
    Reversed.
    
      Charles J. Potter and Turner & Smith for plaintiff.
    
      Stuart & Sweet for defendants.
    Recovery cannot be had against a garnishee unless his disclosure affirmatively makes him out to be indebted to the principal defendant. Lorman v. Phœnix Ins. Co. 33 Mich. 65; Hackley v. Kanitz 39 Mich. 398.
   Graves, J.

This case is governed by Chapman v. Spears 43 Mich. 541, decided at this term. The case was left to rest on the disclosures, and there is no room for saying that they established either an indebtedness to Ward or possession of any property of his at the time of the service of the process. Where, in these proceedings against garnishees under the statute relative to justices’ courts, the plaintiff contents himself with the showing obtained from the garnishee, it must be clear and distinct in the statements or admissions on which recovery depends, or be considered insufficient.

The judgment must be reversed, and one entered here for defendants, with their costs of all the courts.

The other Justices concurred.  