
    Ex rel. Samuel Gunzberg et al. v. Kent Circuit Judge.
    
      Garnishment of judgment.
    
    Mandamus to compel a circuit judge to stay proceedings for the collection of a judgment was denied where it appeared that he had refused the stay on the ground that the judgment had been assigned before the commencement of the proceedings in garnishment, was subject to a lien for attorney’s fees, and was not garnishable by law.
    Mandamus.
    Submitted January 23.
    Denied January 23.
    The petition alleges that the relators suffered judgment in a suit brought against them by Samuel Miller (see 41 Mich., 90); that afterwards the City Bank of Grand Bapids began suit against Miller and another on a promissory note given by them to the bank, and brought in as garnishees, among others, the relators, who disclosed the recovery of the judgment against them; that they afterwards, upon a -showing that Miller was not responsible, moved in the circuit court that he be required to show why proceedings should not be stayed until the final determination of the proceedings in garnishment, and that the judge heard the motion on.petition and answer and certain affidavits and denied it on the ground that before the commencement of the proceedings in garnishment, the judgment had been assigned and that the petitioners had due notice of the assignment; that Miller’s attorneys had a lien on the judgment for their fees; and that the judgment debt was not garnishable under the statutes of this State.
    
      Simonds é Fletcher for relators.
   Per Oubiam.

We have examined this application and the relator’s brief, and find nothing to convince us that the discretion of the circuit judge was improperly exercised, and the writ of mandamus will be denied.  