
    Cheairs vs. Slaten.
    1, The -proceeding- by garnishment is in the nature of a sequestration of the effects ofa debtor, and may be used by any tribunal to the extent of its execution process.
    2. A justice of the peace, having rendered judgment against a defendant for §197 71, had by consequence thereof, power to sequestrate the debts of the defendant in the execution by garnishment to that amount.
    Averil and Cheairs, merchants and partners in trade, suing for the use of Joseph Cheairs, instituted an action of trespass on the case in the circuit court of Hardeman county, on the 3rd day of September, 1840, against Kenneth C. Slaten. The plaintiff declared for goods sold and delivered and cash lent and advanced to defendant.
    The defendant by his attorney Fentress, pleaded 1st, non-as-sumpsit, 2nd payment, and 3d, that on the 4th day of April, 1840, one Coburn Wilkerson, obtained two judgments against said Averil and Cheairs, before Williams, a justice of the peace for Hardeman county, one for $197 71 cents and cost of suit, and the other for $149 50 and cost of suit, that executions were issued on the judgments, and came to the hands of a constable, and were by him returned no property found; that the said constable notified defendant to appear before said Williams justice, and say what he was indebted to said Averil and Cheairs, that he did appear and acknowledge himself indebted to said Averil and Cheairs the sum of $184 88, upon which answer the said Williams rendered a judgment against defendant for said' sum of $184 88 cents, on the 10th day of April, 1840, in favor of said Wilkerson, and that the debt now sued for was the same for which said judgment was rendered by justice Williams.
    Issues were formed on these pleas, and they were submitted to jury at the September term, 1841. The indebtedness of the defendant to Averil and Cheairs being established by the acknowledgment of defendant to the extent claimed in the declaration, the defendant then offered in evidence to the jury, the judgment against A. & C., the execution thereupon, the garnishment summons, his answer and the judgment against himself, all of which were objected by the plaintiff, the objection overruled by the court, and they were read to the jury. The court, Totten, judge, charged the jury if the judgment were rendered as submitted to them, it constituted a good defence to the action. A verdict was rendered in favor of the defendant, a .motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and judgment rendered from which the plaintiff appealed in error.
    
      Miller, for Cheairs.
    
      Fentress, for Slaten.
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action by the plaintiff to recover a debt of $187 96, claimed from the defendant upon open account. Defendant owed the money, but says that previous to the commencement of the suit, one Coburn Wilkerson, a creditor of Averil and Cheairs, by virtue of two judgments before ajustice of the peace, one for $197 71 — the other for $149 50, caused him to be summoned as a garnishee to state what debts he owed to said Averil and Cheairs — that he appeared before the justice, and on oath acknowledged himself to be indebted to them in the sum of $184 88, for which amount judgment was given against him in favor of said Coburn Wilkerson.

Now this suit having been brought after the judgment, John Cheairs for whose use it was brought can have no greater right against the defendant than would Averil and Cheairs, because he obtained by a transfer only an equitable interest therein, which cannot prevail against the legal right of Coburn Wilkerson, provided his judgment be a valid one. This, it is contended, is not because of its amount, which is said to be greater than the justice of the peace had jurisdiction of. It is true, that this debt being due by open account is of an amount greater than the jurisdiction of ajustice of the peace, if the proceedings had been by warrant in favor of Averil and Cheairs, but the proceeding by garnishment is very different; it is in the nature of a sequestration of the effects of a debtor in the hands of Ms debt- or for the payment of his debts, and may he tried by any tribunal to the extent of its execution process. In this case the justice had the right to issue the process for the $197 71 cents, and for-the $149 50 cents, and had of consequence the power to sequestrate debts of the defendants in the execution by garnishment to that amount if it be found. But again, the judgment was rendered upon the written admission of the defendant under oath of his indebtedness — and not upon the open account which rarely is as strong evidence of the existence of the debt as would be a note, bill single, or liquidated account signed by the party to be charged. Let the judgment be affirmed.  