
    Sharpe v. Wharton.
    
      Petition for Supersedeas of Execution.
    
    1. Attachment or garnishment of judgment debt. — By statutory provision (Code, § 3338), a debt which lias been reduced to judgment in the Circuit Court, is not subject to attachment or garnishment issued by, and returnable before a justice of the peace; and if the judgment debtor, in answer to such garnishment, admits the indebtedness, and suffers judgment to be rendered against him by the justice, he can not supersede an execution afterwards issued on the original judgment.
    2. Judgment against garnishee, as defense to action by creditor. — A judgment against a garnishee, without satisfaction thereof, is no defense to an action by the creditor.
    Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of Etowab.
    Tried before tbe Hon. JOHN B. Tally.
    Tbe appellant in tbis case, C. F. Sbarpe, applied by petition addressed to tbe presiding judge of tbe circuit, for a supersedeas of an execution for costs, wbicb bad been issued on a judgment of tbe Circuit Court, rendered against him and others, on tbe 5th March, 1884, in favor of B. B. Wharton. Tbe petition alleged, as ground of relief, that one Wesson was a witness in said cause in tbe Circuit Court, bis fees amounting to $33.90; that on tbe 13th September, 1886, a garnishment was issued by a justice of tbe peace against tbe petitioner, as a debtor of said Wesson, in favor of one Herzberg; that be answered tbe garnishment, admitting said indebtedness of $33.90, and tbe justice thereon rendered a judgment against him, in favor of said Herzberg, for that amount; and that tbe indebtedness to Wesson was included in tbe execution for costs afterwards issued from tbe Circuit Court. On motion of defendant, tbe court quashed tbe proceedings, and dismissed tbe petition; and tbis judgment is here assigned as error.
    Wh. L. Whitloce, for appellant.
    Dobtoh & MARTIN, contra.
    
   SOMEBVILLE, J.-

Tbe statute provides, that no demand or debt in any court of record can be attached under an attachment,' or other process, issued by, and returnable before a justice of the peace. — Code, 1886, § 3338; Code, 1876, § 3686. The Circuit Court in this State is a court of record, and the debt here sought to be attached by process of garnishment had been reduced to judgment in that court. The justice was forbidden by the statute to subject it to the debt in this mode; and for this reason the petition for supersedeas, in which the appellant, Sharpe, sought to obtain the benefit of this illegal proceeding, was properly quashed and dismissed from the Circuit Court.

The action of the Circuit Court can be sustained on another ground. An unexecuted judgment against a garnishee will not, in this State, protect him against the enforcement of the same debt by the creditor. The garnishee must show that he has satisfied the judgment against him, in order to defend against the collection of it by the creditor; otherwise, as is said by ORMOND, J. in Cook v. Field, 3 Ala. 53, where this precise question was decided, “if an unexecuted judgment against the garnishee would be a bar to a suit against him by the original creditor, it might happen that he would not be compelled to pay the debt at all, as the judgment of the attaching creditor might never be enforced.” A like view is taken by the courts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia, and Texas, although in several of the other States a contrary conclusion seems to have been reached. 1 Drake on Attachments (6th Ed.), § 708, and cases cited.

The Circuit Court did not err in quashing the petition for supersedeas, and dismissing it.

Judgment affirmed.  