Case Name: Rock & Son v. Singmaster, Garnishee
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1883-12-13
Citations: 62 Iowa 511
Docket Number: 
Parties: Rock & Son v. Singmaster, Garnishee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 511–513

Head Matter:
Rock & Son v. Singmaster, Garnishee.
1. Attachment: garnishment: service of writ: how proved. The return of a writ of attachment is the statutory evidence of what the officer did under.it; as, for example, that he attached a certain person as garnishee. And where no return was endorsed on the writ, the garnishee was properly discharged, upon the ground that there was no legal evidence before the court that he had been garnished. The notice of garnishment properly served, and with a return of service indorsed thereon, did not furnish the proper evidence.
Appeal from KeoT&uk Ovreuit Court.
Thursday, December 13.
The plaintiffs are creditors of one Cable. As such they brought this action in attachment against him before a justice of the peace, and caused a notice of garnishment to be served upon Singmaster as garnishee. The justice rendered judgment against both the principal defendant and the garnishee. An appeal was taken to the circuit court, and judgment was rendered against the principal defendant, but the garnishee was discharged. The plaintiffs appeal.
Sampson <& Brown, for appellants.
G. J). Woodvn and I. Farley, for appellee.

Opinion:
Adams, J.
The court discharged Singmaster upon the ground that it had no proper evidence before it that he was garnished. No return was made upon the writ. The questions certified areas follows:
"First — Is a written return endorsed upon or attached to a writ of attachment and signed by the officer the only com-i petent evidence that can be produced of its service, when the wi-it itself is in evidence; or may the officer who served it, and failed to make his return, be permitted to testify what he did under and by virtue of the writ ?
"Second — Where a writ of attachment, notice of garnishment, and notice to the attachment defendant that the person named in the garnishee notice has been garnished, were regularly issued and placed in the hands of the same constable at the same time, and the notice to the garnishee, and also the notice to the attachment defendant of the garnishment, were returned with a written return endorsed thereon, signed by the constable, showing that the notices were jjroperly served, but no return was endorsed on or attached to the writ of attachment, will such facts prove a garnishment, or raise a presumption that the person named in the garnishee notice was attached as garnishee in the case ? "
The return of a writ of attachment is the report of the officer of what he did under it. It is provided for by statute. Code, § 3010. When made, it becomes the statutory evidence of what it purports to show.' It must be endorsed upon the writ, or made upon a paper annexed thereto. Code, section above cited. The writ and return constitute essentially one record, and must go together. Dickson v. Peppers, 7 Ired., 429; McCrory v. Chaffin, 1 Swan, 307; Union Bank v. Barnes, 10 Humph., 244. Filing the writ with no endorsement of the proceedings is no return, but a return may be made by leave of court, upon payment of costs. Hall v. Ayer, 19 How. Pr., 91; Nelson v. Brown, 23 Mo., 13. If the officer fail to make a return, the court may doubtless direct him to do so. If he refuse, or make a false return, he becomes liable to the party injured. Under the statute and adjudications, it appears clear to us that with out a return an essential record is wanting, and that the court has before it no proper evidence upon which it can base any proceedings against specific property or credits. The alleged garnishee, we think, was properly discharged.
Affirmed.