Case Name: McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, Respondent, vs. James, Garnishee, Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1893-04-11
Citations: 84 Wis. 600
Docket Number: 
Parties: McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, Respondent, vs. James, Garnishee, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 600–601

Head Matter:
McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, Respondent, vs. James, Garnishee, Appellant.
March 22
April 11, 1893.
Justices' courts: Garnishment: Reopening case after judgment.
After the entry of judgment against a garnishee a justice of the peace cannot reopen the case and adjourn the action, either of his own motion or with the consent of the garnishee; and a subsequent judgment against the garnishee is without jurisdiction.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Pooh County.
Garnishment in justice’s court in aid of execution. After numerous adjournments a judgment was rendered against the garnishee, December 15,1891, for $25 and costs. After-wards, on the same day, the plaintiff, the garnishee defendant, James, and the main defendant, Reed, appeared by their attorneys, and agreed that said judgment be opened so that the case stand as it did before the entry of said, judgment, and that the action be adjourned to January 5, 1892, in accordance with which agreement the justice in form opened the judgment and adjourned the case' to the day stipulated. Upon said 5th of January, 1892, neither the defendant nor the garnishee appeared, and judgment was rendered against the garnishee for the $178.46, the amount of the judgment in the main action, with costs. The garnishee sued out a writ of eertiorari from the circuit court, and upon the justice’s return, showing, among other things, the foregoing facts, the justice’s judgment was affirmed, and the garnishee appealed.
For the appellant there was a brief by Smith & Pieree, and oral argument by William Smith and F. G. Burpee.
For the respondent there was a brief by Doe & Sutherland, and oral argument' by J. B. Doe.
Wis.] JANUAEY TEEM, 1893. Merchants’ & Mechanics’ Savings Bank vs. Lovejoy.

Opinion:
Winslow, J.
This judgment must be reversed. After the. entry of the judgment against the garnishee of December 15, 1891, it is clear that the justice could not, of his own motion, reopen the case and adjourn the action to a future date. Unless the consent of the garnishee gave him 'the power and restored his jurisdiction, he could not do it at all. ' It is well settled in this state that a garnishee cannot,, by voluntary appearance, confer jurisdiction or waive the requirements of the statute. The statute must be strictly pursued in order to confer jurisdiction of a garnishee action. Edler v. Hasche, 67 Wis. 653, and cases there cited.
By the Court.— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to reverse the judgment of the justice.