
    VAIRIN & REEL vs. COLE ET AL.
    ATPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
    Garnishees cannot plead a demand in compensation by way of exception. It can only take place by operation of law.
    Garnishees cannot plead a demand in ^compensation byway of exception. It can’ only take place by operation of law.
    The facts of this case are the same as those of Blanchard vs. Cole et ah See ante 153.
    
      Carter, for the plaintiffs.
    1. The garnishees are liable to the plaintiff’s claim, because they failed to file their answer within ten days after they were summoned. Code of Practice, 252.
    2. The answers of the garnishees, even if admitted as in time, are insufficient. They are not direct and positive, and do not state facts; they answer by a general statement.
    3. They had no right to amend and file a supplemental answer. This fact admits their first answer was insufficient.
    4. Even admitting all the answers to be in time and sufficient, the garnishees are liable. They show that the claim they plead in compensation, is due them by the defendants, as legatees of their brother; while they are indebted to the defendants, as a commercial firm.
    4. The garnishees from their own showing have become liable to pay the judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant, and the judgment of the District Court must therefore be affirmed. 5 Louisiana Reports, 82.
    
      Preston, for the garnishees and appellants.
   Mathews, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case depends for its decision, on the principles adopted in the case of Blanchard vs. the same parties, and must therefore receive a similar judgment to that just rendered in the latter case.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.  