
    Curtis v. Raymond Bros. & Co.
    Garnishment: or mortgages os personal property. A mortgagee of personal property which has never come into his possession is not hound, after garnishment' hy an attaching creditor of the mortgagor to take possession of the property for the benefit of such creditor, and cannot, in the absence of fraud or collusion, he held liable for the same, though it exceeded in value the amount of his mortgage.
    
      Appeal from Bremer District Court.
    
    Friday, June 10.
    
      G. C. Wright for the appellant.
    
      John F. Burke for the appellee.
   Williams, J.

Raymond Bros. & Co. were garnished as the mortgagees of certain property of one Webster.

It appears they never had possession of the property, and that it exceeded in value the amount of their claim. It is claimed that because they failed to take possession of the property after garnishment, and account for its proceeds, they are liable.

We do not think the mortgagees were under obligation to take possession of the property for the benefit of an attaching creditor of Webster, and they are not liable for such property not in their possession, in the absence of fraud or collusion on their part.

Affirmed.  