Case ID: whart_3/html/0012-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

* [Philadelphia, December 21, 1837.]
    MARIS and Another against SCHERMERHORN and Another.
    The Court refused to set aside a return made hy the sheriff in a foreign attachment; hut granted leave to amend it.
    A writ of foreign attachment in case issued out of this Court, returnable to the present term, in which Maris & Son were plaintiffs, and Schermerhorn and Marsh were defendants. On the writ was the following endorsement,—
    “Attach goods, wares and merchandise, and credits of the defendants, in the hands, pospession, name, power, custody or control of Samuel Snelling, jun., and Samuel Snelling jun. & Hampton L. Carson, trading as Snelling & Company, and summon them as garnishees.”
    The following return was made on the writ—
    “Attached as within commanded, and summoned S. Snelling and H. L. Carson as garnishees. — So answers.
    Philip Banks, D. S.
    
      September 4dh, 1837. Jiro. Gr. Watmough, Sheriff.”
    
    An affidavit of the garnishees was filed, stating that service had been made only on Snelling and Carson, trading as Snelling & Co.
    A rule had been obtained on a previous day, .to show cause why the return of the sheriff should not be set aside; and also that he have leave to amend the return.
    Mr. Gerhard'for the rule.
    The return is vague and ambiguous. And although a general return may be received where no objection is made, yet where the court is informed as it is by the affidavit of the garnishees in the present case, that the sheriff has not followed the directions of the act of Assembly, as to the service of writs of foreign attachment, and that the return is inaccurate, and will produce mischief and work injustice to third persons, they will direct the sheriff to return specifically how he has served the writ; and then if such return be false, the defendants may have redress by an action against the sheriff. But if he return the facts as they regard the service of the writ, no property has been attached, because Snelling & Co. have no property of the defendants in their hands ; but there is property in the hands of Samuel Snelling, jun. as assignee of the estate of an insolvent.
    *Mr. Fallon for the plaintiffs, contra.
    
   Per Curiam.

We cannot force the sheriff to amend his return; but as the counsel for the garnishees has moved, that the sheriff have permission to amend, the motion will be granted. If he should not do so, the defendants and garnishees will not be injured; but on the return of the scire facias against them, the garnishees may show the facts, if they will be of any avail, presented in the affidavits filed.

Cited by Counsel, 1 Barr, 18.

Cited by the Court, 1 P. P. Smith, 252.

See also 5 Barr, 519.