
    Rice & Burnett v. George W. Whitney.
    Error to the district court of Cuyahoga county.
    Rice & Burnett brought an action before a justice of the ■peace against Alvah Evans, and obtained an order of attachment, and George W. Whitney was summoned as a garnishee. He appeared and answered, and his answer reduced to writing by the justice, he signed. An order was made by the the justice that he" pay $24 into court, as the sum admitted to be due. Failing to do this, an action was brought against him by Rice & Burnett. He claimed to show'in defense— that before the service of the garnishment, Evans had assigned the claim against him to one Wyman, of which he had notice; that upon his examination, he stated to the justice that Wyman claimed to have purchased the demand against him, but that he did not known whether the alleged purchase was actual and bona fide; that he was indebted to Evans or Wyman, and he could not state which. Also, that the justice refused to write out the full answer made by him, and that the justice stated that he could not take a qualified answer, but that he must answer definitely, whether he was indebted to the said Evans, or was not. He also offered to prove that Wyman had brought suit against him on the claim, and he had been compelled to pay the same, and that he was not, at the time the garnishment was served upon him, indebted to said Evans.
    The court of common pleas refused to receive any of the evidence thus offered, and rendered judgment against Whitney. That judgment was reversed on error by the district court, and to reverse the judgment of the district court a petition in error was filed in this court.
    
      Williamson § Riddle and J). W. Gage, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      S. B. Axtell, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

Held: 1. That the plaintiff in attachment ■ought not to be allowed a more summary or speedy remedy against the debtors of the defendant in attachment, than their own creditor, was the principle upon which the provisions in the code relating to attachments were framed. This principle appears to have been departed from in an amendment cf section 200 of the code, made 17th March, 1856, which allows an execution as upon a judgment, where a garnishee, after-examination, is ordered to pay money into court. But this amendment does not apply to proceedings before a justice of the peace.

2. A garnishee is required to appear and submit to an ex-animation, and if the justice comes to the conclusion that the-statements made by the garnishee amount to an admission of indebtedness, he may order the sum admitted to be due to be paid into court. But the only mode by which such an order can be enforced, is by an action against the garnishee. The examination and the order thereupon were not intended as a summary remedy for the collection of the debt, but to put the plaintiff in attachment in a position to enforce the claim of the defendant in attachment against the garnishee, in the ordinary mode — by action. The action would be a useless and expensive form if the garnishee had been already concluded by' the order. Unless the statements of a garnishee could be made in all cases with a clear understanding of his rights and liabilities, and in such a manner as to be neither innocently misstated nor misunderstood, it would be unjust - to give to those statements a conclusive effect and admit no explanation. It would be the more unjust as the garnishee is called upon in a proceeding in which he has no interest for the benefit of a stranger, and no provision is made for accuracy in reducing that statement to writing, or to secure the- garnishee the right to contest the construction which the justice may put upon it, and the inference he may draw that an indebtedness is admitted.

Judgment of the district court affirmed.  