Case Name: THE COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. E. E. KRUEGER et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1928-01-10
Citations: 123 Or. 534
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. E. E. KRUEGER et al.
Judges: Rand, C. J., and Coshow and McBride, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 534–537

Head Matter:
Argued December 21, 1927,
affirmed January 10, 1928.
THE COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. E. E. KRUEGER et al.
(262 Pac. 937.)
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Reeder & Eastham, with an oral argument by Mr. O. W. Eastham.
For respondent there was a brief over the name of Mr. Arthur C. Dayton.

Opinion:
ROSSMAN, J.
Affidavits similar to that before us have been frequently upheld. In Silver Peak Mines v. Hanchett, 80 Fed. 990, the court in referring to an affidavit somewhat similar to the document before us tersely said:
"The point that is raised is purely technical in its character and it goes simply to the form, and not the substance, of the affidavit. The true interpretation to be given to that affidavit is that it is the affidavit of M. A. Murphy, who is the attorney for the corporation. It is not susceptible, in my judgment, of any other judicial interpretation."
Similarly we believe that the document before us is the affidavit of C. A. Boyle, secretary of the corporation. Other holdings to similar effect are, Hotaling & Co. v. Brogan, 12 Cal. App. 500 (107 Pac. 711); Moline etc. Co. v. Curtis, 38 Neb. 520 (57 N. W. 161); Thedin v. First Nat. Bank of Savage, 67 Mont. 65 (214 Pac. 956); we hold the affidavit sufficient.
Both reason and authority uphold the sufficiency of the copy of the writ served upon the garnishee. The seal's only function is to evidence the validity of the writ, but it is not a part of the writ; hence it is not necessary to refer to it in the copy served: Lyon v. Baldwin, 194 Mich. 118 (160 N. W. 428, L. R. A. 1917C, 148, annotated); Cameron v. Wheeler, 6 Q. B. U. C. 355; Sietwan v. Goeckner, 127 Ill. App. 67; Kelley v. Mason, 4 Ind. 618; Hughes v. Osburn, 42 Ind. 450; Elramy v. Abeyounis, 189 N. C. 278 (126 S. E. 743); Peters v. Crittenden, 8 Tex. 131; Herold v. Coates, 88 Neb. 487 (129 N. W. 998). See, also, Watson v. Morton, 18 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 138; 32 Cyc. 460; 21 R. C. L., Process, § 72.
Affirmed.
Rand, C. J., and Coshow and McBride, JJ., concur.