Case ID: ill-app_60/html/0429-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mb. Justice Shepard", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Henry Schueck et al.
    1. Garnishment—Necessity of a Judgment.—In garnishment proceedings there must he a judgment upon which an execution can issue against the judgment debtor.
    Garnishment.—Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1805.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed October 31, 1895.
    A. Binswanger and Elmer E. Jackson, attorneys for appellant.
    Cratty Bros., MacLaren, Jarvis & Cleveland, attorneys for appellees.
   Mb. Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Coubt.

This appeal is from a judgment recovered in a garnishment proceeding against the appellant upon a certain alleged judgment against the appellees in favor of Edward A. Prior & Co.

However gratifying it might be to discuss all the questions urged upon ns there is one vital error insisted upon by appellant to which we must, in the press of a large docket, confine ourselves.

The record is absolutely bare of any evidence of the alleged judgment upon which the garnishment purports to he founded. This is fatal. There must be a judgment upon which execution can issue against the judgment debtor. Gilcreest v. Savage, for use, etc., 44 Ill. 56; Pierce v. Wade, 19 Ill. App. 185; McNeill v. Donohue, 44 Ill. App. 42. The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.