
    E. P. Russell v. H. F. Clingan et ux.
    Garnishment: answer on garnishee. — It will be error to enter judgment against a garnishee upon his answer, “ that upon the defendant’s complying with his contract with him, he will be indebted to him” a certain sum. Such an answer does not admit an indebtedness, but only a possibility of indebtedness, on the part of the garnishee to the judgment-debtor.
    In error to the Circuit Court of Hinds county. Hon. John Watts, judge.
    Clingan and wife, having recovered a judgment against one Dudley, procured a garnishee process to be issued against E. P. Russell, who answered, “that upon said Dudley’s complying with his contract with respondent, that he will be indebted to said Dudley in the sum of ninety-five dollars, and no more.” The plaintiff objected to the answer as insufficient, and then moved the court for a judgment against Russell for ninety-five ■ dollars, which motion was sustained, and the judgment rendered accordingly.
    From this judgment, Russell sued out this writ of error.
    
      T. J. and F. A. JR. Wharton, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. F. Fonte, for defendant in error.
   Fisher, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error was summoned to answer, as a garnishee, what sum or amount he was indebted to one Charles Dudley, and he'answered, that upon Dudley’s complying with his contract with the plaintiff in error, he would owe Dudley the sum of ninety-five dollars. The court rendered a judgment upon this answer for the above sum.

This judgment was erroneous. The answer did not admit an indebtedness, but only the possibility of an indebtedness at a future period.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.  