Case Name: WILLIAM SOLON and Abe Solon, Copartners under the Firm Name and Style of Universal Electrical Appliance Company, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. A. J. O'SHEA, Defendant and Respondent, and FARGO NATIONAL BANK, a Corporation, Garnishee
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1920-05-01
Citations: 45 N.D. 362
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM SOLON and Abe Solon, Copartners under the Firm Name and Style of Universal Electrical Appliance Company, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. A. J. O’SHEA, Defendant and Respondent, and FARGO NATIONAL BANK, a Corporation, Garnishee.
Judges: Christianson, Oh. J., and Bobinson and Birbzell, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Dakota Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 362–369

Head Matter:
WILLIAM SOLON and Abe Solon, Copartners under the Firm Name and Style of Universal Electrical Appliance Company, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. A. J. O’SHEA, Defendant and Respondent, and FARGO NATIONAL BANK, a Corporation, Garnishee.
(177 N. W. 757.)
Appeal and error — appeal from order vacating garnishment must present record identifying papers or evidence presented.
1. In an appeal from an order vacating garnishment proceedings, made upon a motion and order to show cause therefor, the appellant, pursuant to the statutes and the rule of this court, must present a record identifying by the order or certificate of the’ trial court, the papers or evidence presented or heard upon the hearing.
Garnishment — failure to serve garnishee summons on defendant renders service on garnishee null.
2. (Upon reinstatement of appeal.) Failure to serve a garnishee summons upon a defendant or his attorney pursuant to the statute renders service on the garnishee null, void, and of no effect from the beginning, and it is unnecessary, in such event, to serve or file any formal notice of dismissal.
Opinion filed May 1, 1920.
Appeal from District Court, Cass County, Odie, J.
Erom an orderr vacating certain garnishment proceedings, appeal dismissed ; thereafter, appeal reinstated upon petition for remand and certification of the record.
Order reversed.
John G. Pfeffer, for appellants.
The proceedings against a garnishee are deemed an action by the plaintiff against the garnishee and against the defendant, as parties de- • fendant, and all provisions of law relating to proceedings in civil actions at issue are applicable thereto. Scott Co. v. Scheldt, 35 N. D. 433,460 N. W. 502; Park, Grant & Morris v. Nordale, 170 N. W. 555,
In all cases where the defendant claims the debt or property garnished to be exempt, such claim of exemption may be heard and determined by the court at any time after the claim is made, on three days’ notice to the opposite party. Sess. Laws 1917, § 3, chap. 124.
Where the legislature has said that a certain act shall be done in a certain manner, such affirmative requirement will be deemed to include an implied negative that it shall not be done in another manner. Park, Grant & Morris v. Nordale, 170 N. W. 555.
“Unless the garnishee summons is so served on the defendant or his attorney in accordance wtih the provisions of this section, -the service on the garnishee shall become null and void and of no effect from the beginning.” Comp. Laws, 1913, § 7571.
The dismissal or discontinuance, in apt time, of a prior action, defeats a plea in abatement of the pendency of such action. 1 Cyc. 24 and cases cited.
“If the affidavit or process by which a suit was eprumenced is void, a plea of the pendéncy of such suit, in abatement of a subsequent suit, falls.” Ernst v. Hogue, 86 Ala. 502, 5 So. 738; Minniece v. Jeter, 66 Ala. 222.
T. J. McEnroe, for respondent.
“Upon a proper showing to the court that a garnishment process has been improperly or improvidently issued, as where the necessary steps to give the court jurisdiction of the proceedings had not been taken, or where other statutory prerequisites have not been complied with, the garnishment proceedings will be dismissed.” 20 Cyc. 1125,1126.
The law applicable to the case at bar is found in the Compiled Laws of North Dakota for 1913, §§ 7571 and 7572; 20 Cyc. 1125.
The proper mode of procedure to vacate and dissolve proceedings in garnishment is either a motion to quash the proceedings or a rule to show cause why they should not be quashed, and some cases where fraud or surprise is alleged, a court of equity will intervene to protect the garnishee and defendant. 20 Cyc. 1126.
Appellants proceeded with a second garnishment for the same debt, in the same action, against the same garnishee, without first dismissing their first garnishment proceedings, which was fatal. Hustadt v. Bishop (Minn.) 50 L.B.A. 168, 83 N. W. 449; Seiver v. Union P. B. Co. (Neb.) 61 L.B.A. 319, 93 N. W. 943; Milwaukee Bridge & Iron Works v. Brevoort Circuit Judge (Mich.) 41 N. W. 215; Nornberg v. Larson (Minn.) 72 N. W. 564.

Opinion:
Bronson, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the distinct court vacating garnishment proceedings, upon a motion and order to show cause. The record presented to this court comprises the files, pleadings, and process on file in the office of the clerk of the district court in such action, together with the papers on appeal. To this record is attached only the certificate of the clerk, certifying that such papers constitute those on file of record in such action.
In the order of the district judge, vacating and setting aside the garnishment proceedings involved, and in his memorandum opinion, setting forth the reasons therefor, there is no recital stating, and in the record there is no certificate by the trial judge certifying what papers, affi davits, or evidence were presented or considered upon the hearing of such motion.
Briefly the facts are these':'—
In September, 1918, the plaintiff instituted an action to recover an alleged balance for goods, wares, and merchandise sold. In July, 1919, garnishment process was served upon the garnishee herein. No service thereof was made upon the defendant. Subsequently, in September, 1919, new ganishment process was served upon the garnishee and the defendant. Pursuant thereto, the bank made disclosure of its indebtedness to the defendant.
Subsequently, in November, 1919, the motion and order to show cause, herein involved, was made to vacate and annul both of such garnishment proceedings, apparently upon grounds of jurisdiction, and, further, that such garnishment process was used for the improvident purpose of harassing the defendant. In dismissing the garnishment proceedings, the trial court determined that a notice of dismissal of the first garnishment should, among other things, have been given to the defendant before the second garnishment, and that there were other matters appearing, from the affidavits of the parties, that would sustain the court in vacating such garnishment proceedings.
It is apparent that appellate procedure must rest upon a record settled as the statute requires. What matters may have been considered by the trial court upon this hearing, what affidavits or even evidence was presented, not contained in this record, if any, is not disclosed. The statute requires, as well as the rule of this court, either that the order of the trial court describe the papers, or evidence upon which the same was made, or that a certificate to that effect be made. See § 7822, 7944, Comp. Laws, 1913, chap. 131, Laws 1913; Supreme Court Rule 24 [145 N. W. xiii]; Harris v. Hessin, 30 N. D. 33, 151 N. W. 4. Manifestly this court cannot review the order of the- trial court upon this record. The appeal is dismissed, without costs.
Christianson, Oh. J., and Bobinson and Birbzell, JJ., concur.