
    Camberford vs. Hall.
    The garnishee cannot take advantage of any errors or irregularities in tho proceedings against.the absent debtor. No one but the debtor can take advantage of errors.
    A judgment is not void because it is erroneous, if it be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; until reversed by the defendant himself, itis only voidable.
    
    So, if an attachment be taken out without the plaintiffs giving b,ond, only . the defendant himself can make the objection.
    Tried at Walterborough in November ternij 1825, before Mr. Justice Waties.
    fa this case, a writ of domestic attachment was issued, m which judgment was.recovered by default against the de« fend ant, and entered on record on the 5th July 1825. Claiiv born was the garnishee, on whom a copy writ of attachment had been served. The case came before the court below upon two motions.made before Judge Waties, presiding. The first was a motion by the attaching creditor, Camberford,.for leave to enter up judgment against Clairborn, the garnishee. This was opposed by Ray sor and -Edwards, for the garnishee, who as his counsel also made a motion to set aside all the proceedings, as absolutely void, under the act of 1.785. This motion was opposed by the-attaching creditors. The pre-presiding judge refused the motion of the attaching creditor, and granted the motion ofthe garnishee, on the ground, that the , attachment was absolutely void, on the authority of Gray and Young, (Harper's L. R. 38,) because the bond was taken for $300, double the cause of action, and riot for double the damages or sum sued for.
    From this decision the attaching creditor appealed, and moved the court of Appeals to reverse the same, and for leave to enter judgment against the garnishee; because,
    1st. The presiding judge erred in ruling that the gar* nishee had a right to question the regularity of the proceedings against the defendant. -
    2nd. Because the presiding judge also erred in ruling, -'hat the attachment could-be set aside on motion,
    
      
      Clarke and Warren for motion,
    
      Edwards and Raysor contra,
   Colcock, J.

It has been repeatedly decided by., this court that the garnishee cannot take advantage of any errors or irregularities in the proceedings against the'absent debtor. The protection which the law has furnished to the property of the absent debtor is intended for his benefit, and not that of a third person. The bond which the law requires is to shield him from unjust suits; if he, therefore, does not think-fit tp • complain that the bond has not been taken in conformity with the requisitions of the act, why should any other be. permit» ted to do so ? (1 M‘ Cord 116.) But it is said the act declares the attachment void, if the bond be not taken in double the sum to be attached; and that the bond not being so taken, the court, is bound on motion of any one to set aside the. judgment, and dismiss the attachment as a mere nullity. The court is riot bound to set aside a judgment on any ground of error or irregularity, as already stated,except at the instance of the defendant. A judgment is not. void because it is erro» neous. If it be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, it must remain until arrested or reversed, (See 2 Dane’s Am. Dig. 635. sec. 9 where the authorities are all referred to.) This principle was recognised in the case of Kemps, Lesse, vs. Kennedy, (5 Cranch 173,) by Chief Justice Marshall; and Hawkins, (2 Vol. Chap. 29, sec. 40,) says, an erroneous judgment is not void but voidable by writ of error. This word “void,” when used in a legislative act, on such a subject as the one embraced in this act, is to be understood synoni-mously with “voidable,” that is, it will be declared void on pleading. In 5 Rep. 119, in Whelp dale’s case, it is said when an act of parliament says that a deed, &c. shall be void;, it is intended that it shall be, by pleading; so that it is voidable but not actually vacated.

The motion is granted.  