Case ID: ill-app_203/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McDonald", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James L. Marino for use of Flavia Trucco, Executrix, Plaintiff in Error, v. Antonio Parisi and Nicola Monaco, Defendants in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,747.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Rufus F. Robinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.
    Reversed and judgment here.
    Opinion filed February 9, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Garnishment proceeding hy James L. Marino for use of Flavia Trueco, executrix under the last will and testament of Joseph Trueco, deceased, plaintiff, against Antonio Parisi and Nicola Monaco, defendants, based upon a judgment in favor of the executrix against Marino for $277.50 and costs. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error.
    Ernest Saunders and Frank A. Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.
    No appearance for defendants in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Garnishment, § 15
      
      —when cogarnishee furnishing funds to contractor may not be garnisheed. In a garnishment proceeding against two defendants, where it was shown that one of such defendants had a contract with the other to furnish him the funds for constructing a certain building which the nominal plaintiff had contracted with the latter to construct for an agreed price, held that there was no claim or demand by the plaintiff against the co-garnishee furnishing the funds, so as to authorize garnishment.
    2. Mechanics’ liens, § 62
      
      —when right of subcontractor to lien is waived by contractor. Where a building contractor by his contract waives any and all liens for himself and all subcontractors, the latter have no enforceable lien.
    3. Garnishment, § 69
      
      —when garnishee paying debt after garnishment is wrongfully discharged. Where the evidence showed that the garnishee had a building contract with the nominal plaintiff in the garnishee proceedings at the time of service of process and was indebted to such plaintiff and thereafter paid him a certain sum under such contract, held that it was error for the court to discharge such garnishee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.