Case Name: James H. Payne v. The Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., Garnishees of James E. Lee
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1897-03-08
Citations: 69 Ill. App. 38
Docket Number: 
Parties: James H. Payne v. The Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., Garnishees of James E. Lee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 38–39

Head Matter:
James H. Payne v. The Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al., Garnishees of James E. Lee.
1. Appellate Court Practice—What the Record Must Show.— Where the record fails to show any evidence of the liability of 'a party sued, a judgment in his favor must be affirmed.
Debt, with attachment in aid. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1898.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed March 8, 1897.
Statement of the Case.
This was an action of debt, with attachment in aid, brought by James H. Payne against James E. Lee, based upon a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the principal defendant, obtained in the United States Circuit Court in and for the Southern District of Iowa, Eastern Division, at Keokuk, in the State of Iowa, on the 24th day of March, 1888, for the sum of $1,430.39 and costs, on which judgment it was asserted by affidavit there was due, on March 13, 1896, the sum of $2,112.20.
The appellees herein were summoned as garnishees of the principal defendant, James E. Lee.
The garnishees severally answered, and the principal defendant pleaded to the declaration and the cause proceeded to trial, resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff (appellant) against James E. Lee, the principal defendant, for $1,687.20, and in a verdict and judgment in favor of the garnishees, who are appellees here.
William M. Jones and W. Ievins Culver, attorneys for appellant.
Walter W. Ross, attorney for appellees; Robert Mather and W. T. Rankin, of counsel.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Waterman
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The judgment of the Circuit Court discharging the garnishees must be affirmed, if for no other reason, because the record fails to show any evidence that the garnishees were indebted in any sum to the principal defendant, Lee.