
    The People on the relation of Thomas Griffin v. Henry Z. Potter.
    
      Justice of the peace: Payment into court: Garnishment: Judgment. A justice of • the peace before whom a judgment has been obtained and to whom the same has been paid pending garnishee proceedings before him to reach the avails thereof, may, upon judgment being rendered, in such garnishee proceedings, against the judgment debtor and after the time for appealing therefrom has expired, apply the money so paid into court in payment of such garnishee judgment.
    
      Heard and decided April 22.
    
    Application for mandamus.
    
    The relator obtained judgment before the respondent, a justice of the peace for the city of Detroit, against one Ellen O’Connor, upon which execution issued and was placed in the hands of a constable. Subsequently one Jeremiah O’Connor brought suit before the respondent against the relator, and garnished said Ellen O’Connor. To the writ of garnishment Ellen O’Connor answered admitting the indebtedness to the relator by virtue of his judgment against her.
    Jeremiah O’Connor having recovered judgment against the relator as principal defendant, the respondent rendered judgment against Ellen O’Connor as garnishee defendant, upon her answer. Thereupon she paid the money into court to satisfy the relator’s judgment against her, and the respondent recalled the execution (under which nothing had! been done), and entered satisfaction of said judgment. After-the expiration of the time limited for appealing from the-judgment in the garnishee proceedings, no appeal having-been taken, the respondent applied the money so received, in payment of the judgment in favor of Jeremiah O’Connor, and refused, on demand by the relator, to pay the same over to him.
    The relator now applies for mandamus to compel the respondent to issue execution upon said judgment or to pay the money over to him.
    
      George II. Penniman, for the relator.
    
      Moore & Griffin, for the respondent.
   The Court

held that the action of the respondent in the premises was correct, and denied the writ.  