
    D. W. Ingersoll & Co. vs. the First National Bank, Garnishee, &c.
    S. S. Baton, defendant, deposited in ttie First National Bank money in name of “S. S. Baton, Agent.” Held — That this was not conclusive evidence that the money was the property of said Baton, and the officers of the Bank having denied any indebtedness to him, or the possession or control of any money or effects belonging to him, the plaintiffs could not proceed farther against the garnishee without filing a supplemental complaint as provided in chapter 70 of the Lavis of 1860.
    Proceedings were instituted by D. W. Ingersoll & Co., plaintiffs, against the First National Bank, Garnishee of S. S. Eaton, defendant. Testimony was taken before a referee on the 5th of January, 1865, pursuant to an order of the District Court of Ramsey county.
    J. E. Thompson, the president of said bank, testified in substance, that he knew S. S. Eaton ; that Eaton had no account in the books of the bank, nor has he made any deposits there; there .appears on our deposit ledger the name of “ Samuel S. Eaton, Agentaccording to the books the balance this morning to the credit of “ Samuel S. Eaton, Agent,” is §273.55.; the bank has never had any deposit account in its books with S. S. Eaton, except as agent. * * *
    H. P. Upham, the teller of the bank, testified that the account was in the name of “ Samuel S. Eaton, Agent,” in the books of the bank. * * *
    Samuel S. Eaton testified, that he had not on the first day of July last, or at any time since, and has not now, any money, property, or effects, in the hands of the First National Bank; that the bank was not indebted to him in any sum; the account referred to in the testimony of J. E. Thompson was kept by him as agent; that he was then and is now the agent of seven different insurance companies, and the agent of persons residing East for property here; that all moneys deposited by him as agent was money belonging to the companies and persons .represented by him as such agent. * * ‘ *
    A motion for judgment against the garnishee was made upon the disclosure before the referee, and denied by the District Court, and the plaintiffs appeal from the order denying such motion.
    Brisbin & Warner for Appellants.
    Van Etten & Oeeiger for Respondent.
   By the Court

Wilson, C. J.

— Proceedings against a garnishee are for the purpose of reaching the property of the defendant.

The deposit of money in the bank in the name of “ Samuel S. Eaton, Agent,” is not conclusive evidence that the money was the property of said Eaton, or that the bank thereby became his debtor. If the money is not the property of the defendant, the plaintiff is not legally or equitably entitled to it.' The garnishee having denied any indebtedness to the defendant, or the possession or control of any property, money, or effects belonging to him, the plaintiff can only proceed further by filing a supplemental complaint as provided in Chap. 70, of Laws of 1860,

The order appealed from is affirmed.  