Case Name: Joseph David vs. Frederick C. Rode. The Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company, Garnishee
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-07
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 961
Docket Number: No. 1123
Parties: Joseph David vs. Frederick C. Rode. The Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company, Garnishee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 961–964

Head Matter:
No. 1123.
Joseph David vs. Frederick C. Rode. The Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company, Garnishee.
When the answer of the garnishee denies any indebtedness to tbe defendant, no judgment can be rendered against tbe said garnishee,without a rule or other proceeding to traverse tbe answers of tbe garnishee. C. P. 264; 16 An. 253, 348;'19 An. 374; 27 An. 93; 28 An. 691; 6 An. 122; 31 An. 865; 32 An. 280.
It is only when the answers of the garnishee are an unconditional and unqualified confession of indebtedness to the defendant, that j udgmenfc can he rendered pro condesáis against him. C. P. 246.
Any proceeding to traverse or disprove the answers of a garnishee must he filed within twenty days after such answers are filed, or the garnishee is released. Act No. 27 of 1877 j 31 An. 546.
APPEAL from the Nineteenth District Court, Parish of St. Mary. Goode, J.
Foster & Brother for Plaintiff and Appellee.
Jos. P. Bornor and F. W. BaJcer for tlie Garnishee and Appellant:
First. When the answer of the garnishee denies any indebtedness to the defendant, no judgment can be rendered against the garnishee, without a rule or other proceeding to traverse the answers of the garnishee. O. 3?. 264; 16 An. 253, 348; 19 An. 374; 27 An. 93 ; 28 An. 691; 6 An. 122; 31 An. 865; 32 An. 280.
Second. It is only when the answers of the garnishee are an unconditional and unqualified confession of indebtedness to the defendant, that judgment can be rendered pro confessis against him. 246.
Third. A judgment rendered against a garnishee, without any rule or other proceeding putting at issue the truth of the answers, and without notice to the garnishee, and in his absence, is irregular and should be set aside. 24 An. 32; 6 An. 122; 16 An. 253.
Fourth. Any proceeding to traverse or disprove the answers of a garnishee must be filed within twenty days after such answers are filed, or the garnishee is released. Act Ho. 27 of 1877; 31 An. 546.
Fifth. Positive written proof, or the oath of two witnesses worthy of belief, is necessary to overthrow the answers of a garnishee. C. P. 264.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is made by plaintiff and appellee on two grounds :
1. Because the appellee is not given, in the order and citation of appeal, the delay to which the law entitles him.
2. Because there is no seal on the citation of appeal.
First. The petition for an appeal was filed and the order granted on the 22d of June, 1881. Citation issued same day. The appeal was made returnable on 1st Monday of July, at Opelousas. Service acknowledged on the 30th of June, by the counsel for plaintiff and appellee, and served on the defendant, the other appellee, on the 25th of June, and the return day was the 5th of July.
The plaintiff and appellee resides in the City of New Orleans, and the defendant in the Parish of St. Mary.
" The delay to he expressed in the citation consists of ten days, to be counted from the time the citation has been served, which are allowed to the defendant to comply with the demand of the petition, if the defendant reside in the place where the court is held, or within ten miles from such place. If the defendant reside at a greater distance, the aforesaid delay shall be increased by one day for every ten miles that his residence is distant from the place of holding the court, before which he is cited to appear." C. P. 180.
It is evident in this case, that the delays in which the appellee had to answer had not expired on the day fixed in the order of appeal, and that the appellee did not have the delays to which he was legally entitled. On referring however to the petition of appeal, we find that the return day was not suggested by the appellant, but was fixed by the Judge granting the order on his own motion, and that therefore the error mentioned was not a fault imputable to the appellant, and therefore does not come under the authority of the cases cited.
Second. We cannot ascertain from the record whether the Citation of appeal was or not without the seal of the court, and therefore this part of the motion is without force.
We cannot dismiss the appeal, but must continue the case, and thus allow the appellee the delays denied in the order and citation of appeal.