Opinion ID: 1361063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: return on writ of attachment.

Text: It is objected herein that the return of the writ of attachment is not sufficient to show that the court obtained jurisdiction of the subject matter, that is of the res  of the property in the hands of the garnishee. Counsel for appellant make so much of this point  and it seems to be of importance  that we have found it necessary, to make a somewhat exhaustive investigation of the authorities bearing thereon. Counsel cite among other cases the case of Bristol vs. Brent, 36 Utah 108, 103 P. 1076 which contains a valuable discussion on the subject of garnishment, but can hardly be considered a case directly in point herein, although it discusses the subject of obtaining a jurisdiction of the res in attachment proceedings generally. The record in this case is somewhat more complete than the record in the Utah case, at least if we consider the return on the garnishment notice. Moreover, the case became obsolete under a subsequent Utah statute similar to ours, as hereinafter mentioned. Graham vs. Hidden Lake Copper Co., 53 Utah 230, 178 P. 64. The return on the writ of attachment is as follows: I hereby certify that I received the within Writ of Attachment on the 29th day of March, 1949, at 2 o'clock P.M., and served the same in the County aforesaid, on the 29th day of March, 1949, by delivering a certified copy thereof personally to E.R. Burnett. The return on the garnishee notice is as follows: I hereby certify that I served an original copy of the within Garnishee Notice, together with a copy of the Order of Attachment issued in said cause, upon the garnishee named in said notice, by delivering the same to E.R. Burnett, manager, personally on the 29th day of March, 1949, at 9:45 o'clock A.M., in Casper, Natrona County, Wyoming. It may be noted that the return on the writ of attachment itself shows that it was received at 2 P.M., of March 29, 1949, while the notice of garnishment states that it was served at 9:45 A.M. the same day. In other words, the notice of garnishment was, according to these returns, served before the writ of attachment was received. The latter writ was issued on the previous day, according to the date thereof. The return on the notice of garnishment states that it was served together with a copy of the order of attachment issued in said cause, so that the writ must have been in the hands of the sheriff at that time. Under the circumstances we must regard the discrepancy in the time above mentioned as a clerical mistake. In Rood on Garnishment, Section 277 it is stated: all that has been said of the service of the writ applies with equal force to the return, for the return is the officer's report of his doings under the writ. It should be indorsed upon the writ, or made upon a paper annexed thereto; for the writ and return constitute, essentially, one record, and must go together. Whatever the statute requires to be done in the service of the writ, the return must show to have been done; and, unless it shows that due service has been made, the court has before it no proper evidence upon which to base any further proceedings. Its absence cannot be cured by the garnishee's signed admission of due service. In Section 279 the same author states: Palpable defects in the return are not cured by the presumption that the officer has done his duty. But it is held that objections to the sufficiency of the return must be made before or at the time of answering the writ. The return is conclusive of the proceedings under the writ. Section 3-5017, Wyo. Comp. St. 1945 states as follows: The officer shall return upon every order of attachment what he has done under it, and the return must show the property attached, and the time it was attached; when garnishees are served, their names, and the time each was served, must be stated; and the officer shall return with the order all undertakings given under it. It would seem that under this statute the fact that notice of garnishment has been given, should be endorsed on the original writ of attachment. That was not done in this case and no valid levy appears to have been made in this case, unless we can consider the returns on the original writ of attachment and on the notice of garnishment together, or unless the return on the original writ is amendable and so may be regarded herein as amended, or unless the defect in the return must be considered as waived, or other valid reason to the contrary exists. It must be confessed that at first glance in any event, the authorities on the point before us are confusing  in fact apparently irreconcilable. Many authorities state the rule as absolute that the failure of the return to comply with the statute makes the attachment void. 4 Am. Juris. 912, Section 591; 5 Am. Juris. 49. These texts refer to Annotation in 93 A.L.R. 748-773. That annotation deals in the main with attachments of real or tangible personal property, not with garnishment. There is, of course, a material difference in attaching real and tangible personal property, and garnishment, since in the latter jurisdiction over the money attached can be obtained only by notice upon the garnishee, while seizure of the former must be in entirely different manner. Among the cases not involving garnishment is the case of Green vs. Coit, 81 Ohio St. 280; 90 N.E. 794 cited by counsel for appellant. That is true also with Dickinson vs. First National Bank, 64 N.D. 273, 252 N.W. 54; 93 A.L.R. 739. The Annotation cites cases which permit an amendment to the return, and cases which do not. Much depends upon statutory provisions. We shall mention some of ours later on. In any event, sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, and we shall not attempt to lay down any rule which should govern in the case of attachments of real or tangible personal property, and confine this opinion to cases involving garnishment in which there has been a general appearance by the garnishee, and in which no objections have been raised by the defendants in the main action, and which do not involve adverse claims of other innocent creditors. In 38 C.J.S. 381 it is said: Where the statute so requires, the return should be indorsed on the original, and not on the garnishee summons. Where the notice to the garnishee is incidental to attachment, it must, where the statute so requires, be indorsed on the writ of attachment or a paper annexed thereto, it is not sufficient to indorse it on the back of the notice of garnishment, and the return indorsed on the notice of garnishment will not aid an insufficient return indorsed on the writ of attachment. (Italics supplied). The notice to the garnishee and the writ of attachment are found together in the records before us, and while it is not stated in the return on the original writ of attachment that the notice to the garnishee is made a part thereof, it may, in a sense at least, be said that the return was at least partially made on a paper annexed thereto. In Hackett vs. Gihl, 63 Mo. App. 447, cited under the foregoing text, where the general rule above mentioned is stated, the court said that: Neither the return nor the notice of garnishment contains any reference to an attachment suit, or attachment writ. That is not true in the case at bar in which the return on the garnishee notice expressly refers to the attachment writ. In Rock vs. Singmaster, 62 Ia. 511, 17 N.W. 744, also cited under the foregoing text, it is stated that the court doubtless could direct the officer to make a proper return on the original writ of attachment. In Bushnell & Clark vs. Joseph Allen & Bro., 48 Wis. 460, 4 N.W. 599, also cited under the foregoing text, it appears that the statute required that the fact of garnishment should appear on the original summons instead of on the notice of garnishment. The court said: It is claimed that it was the duty of the garnishee to make objection to the proceedings because of these irregularities or defects in the proceedings. Had such objection been made doubtless it would have been unavailing, for the justice would have allowed the officer to make a correct return by indorsing on the original summons a certificate of due service of the garnishee summons, etc. It thus appears that while the foregoing text sustains the general rule that the statute should be followed, when it prescribes that the return should be made on the original writ of attachment, it by no means is decisive of what the holding of this court should be in the case at bar. It may well be that if another creditor should garnishee the same money garnisheed in a case, and no complete notice of the first garnishment is contained on the writ of attachment in the first case, the other creditor's right should take precedence in right, and the garnishee should have the right, commensurate with the situation, to protect itself or himself. But we have no such case before us. No other creditor is claiming any rights herein, and even the defendants in the main suit have never interposed any objection to the attachment and garnishment in this case, and are raising no objections now. In 7 C.J.S. 422 it is said: The return to an attachment will not be invalidated by a mere irregularity or defect in form which in no way affects the substance thereof. In 7 C.J.S. 423 it is stated that the return may be aided by facts appearing elsewhere in the proceeding or by parol evidence. In Grebe vs. Jones, 15 Neb. 312, 18 N.W. 81 it appears that the return on the writ of attachment did not show what property was levied upon, but that was shown in the appraisement. Hence, the objection to the return was overruled. In Sinsheimer vs. Whitley, 111 Cal. 378, 43 P. 1109, the return, together with some parol testimony, showed what property was levied upon and the objection to the return was overruled. In Brusie vs. Gates, 80 Cal. 462, 22 P. 284 it is said: The written return of an officer is not the only evidence of the fact that the writ was properly served; therefore, if the return simply omits to state any fact necessary to a valid service, such fact may be supplied by parol evidence, so long as the facts stated in the return are not varied or contradicted in such way as to affect vested rights. Ritter vs. Scannell, 11 Cal. 249; Porter vs. Pico, 55 Cal. 172; Davis vs. Baker, 72 Cal. 495, 14 Pac. Rep. 102. If a return may be amended, as is held in many cases, except as to intervening rights of innocent parties, the amendment usually relates back to the original return and dates from it. 42 Am. Juris. 115, Section 134; 4 Am. Juris. 919, Section 603; 7 C.J.S. 426, Section 250 (d). To send this case back merely to have the return amended would subserve no good purpose, since what was actually done is definite and certain. The rule in 42 Am. Juris. 21 that process which is amendable supports a judgment should apply in this case. In 38 C.J.S. 383 it is stated: Objections as to the form and sufficiency of the return are ordinarily deemed to be waived by the garnishee where he has appeared and answered.    It has been both affirmed and denied that the entire absence of a return can be waived by the garnishee. As affirming the right that the garnishee may waive the entire absence of the return, the text cites Graham vs. Hidden Lake Copper Co., 53 Utah 230, 178 P. 64. As denying that right the text cites Federal Truck Co. vs. Mayer, 216 Mo. App. 443, 270 S.W. 407. In the latter case the ruling was based on the fact that the officer serving the notice of garnishment, made no return upon it at all. The contrary is true in the case at bar, so that the Missouri case cannot be considered as of any authority herein. In American Trust Co. vs. Kaufman, 276 Pa. 35, 119 Atl. 749, the court said in part: The garnishees entered a general appearance.    By their appearance they were in court, as was the property attached through service on them.    The garnishees, having come into court and brought the res in with them by their appearance, could not set up that there was a faulty return. In Cope vs. Oil Well Supply Co., (Tex. Civ. App.) 57 S.W.2d 917, the court stated: In the second place the sufficiency of the return of a writ of garnishment becomes immaterial where the garnishee admits statutory service under oath, and particularly so where no rights of other creditors are involved. In Hillis vs. Wolfe (Tex. Civ. App.) 284 S.W. 227, the court stated: The only office of an officer's return is to make a record of the service, and, where the garnishee under oath admits statutory service, the sufficiency of the officer's return becomes immaterial. To the same effect are Joseph vs. Pyle, 2 W. Va. 449; Saunders vs. Moore, 21 Tenn. App. 375, 110 S.W.2d 1047; Flournoy & Epping vs. Rutledge, 73 Ga. 735; Lee vs. Jackson Light & Traction Co., 261 Fed. 721. In the case of Graham vs. Hidden Lake Copper Co., 53 Utah 230, 178 P. 64 the court said in part: It is contended by respondent that under the provisions of Comp. Laws 1907, § 3094, a return was necessary, showing due service on the person named as garnishee before the court had jurisdiction of the garnishee or of any property in its hands belonging to the defendant. A reading of that section does not support that contention. That section simply states that the return showing such service shall give the court jurisdiction to proceed against the garnishee as therein provided, but it does not provide that the property sought to be reached was not liable to the claims of the plaintiff until the return of the writ. Such property became liable from the date of service as provided in the second paragraph of chapter 94, Laws Utah 1913. True, the court could not proceed to determine the rights of the parties unless or until there was some evidence before it that process had been served upon the garnishee, but the garnishee was, nevertheless, bound to hold, for the benefit of the plaintiff, whatever property it had belonging to the defendant on the date of serving the writ. In the chapter providing for garnishment there is no time fixed when the officer shall make a return. What the court said as to the necessity of proof being before the court before it could proceed to adjudge the rights of the parties is, we think, satisfied by our statute hereinafter mentioned. The rule deducible from these authorities, (we cannot say that all cases would support it) seems to be that jurisdiction of the subject matter  the money garnisheed  in analogy to the rule governing jurisdiction of the person, as heretofore stated, is the actual service of notice of garnishment upon the garnishee, thereby laying hands upon and seizing the money, and that the return upon the writ is but evidence thereof. The seizure in this case was, as far as we can see, in strict conformity to the statute. If there were any doubt on the subject, so far as this state is concerned, it is, we think, dissipated by the provisions of Section 3-5013, Wyo. Comp. St. 1945 which counsel have overlooked. It provides: and if the garnishee admit an indebtedness to the defendant and the court order the payment of the same or any part thereof to the plaintiff, and the garnishee fail to pay the same according to such order, execution may issue thereon as upon judgments for the payment of money. That statute means, if it means anything at all, that when a garnishee comes in and answers that he owes money to the defendant, the court by that very fact obtains jurisdiction over the garnishee and the money garnisheed. The return of the officer in such case becomes immaterial, since evidence of what was done is shown by the appearance and answer of the garnishee. Section 3-5031 provides that: if he (the garnishee) fail to comply with the order of the court to deliver the property and pay the money owing into court,    the plaintiff may proceed against him by civil action. We do not know how to reconcile the two sections quoted unless we hold that the term may in the latter section means just what it says; namely, that the plaintiff in a garnishment proceeding has the option, when the garnishee's answer discloses an indebtedness due to the defendant, to have execution issued at once, or proceed by civil action. It is probable that the latter section was particularly intended to apply to a case when a garnishee fails to appear, or when his answer is unsatisfactory. Another section of our statute has a material bearing herein. Section 3-5018, Wyo. Comp. St. 1945 provides in part: An order of attachment shall bind the property attached from the time of service; and the garnishee shall stand liable to the plaintiff in attachment to the amount of    moneys, credits, and effects in his possession    belonging to the defendant    from the time he is served with the written notice   , etc. That, of course, seems wholly inconsistent with the theory that the lien attaches, and jurisdiction over the res is obtained, only after the return of the writ of attachment has been made in compliance with Section 3-5017, Wyo. Comp. St. 1945 heretofore quoted. Graham vs. Hidden Lake Copper Co., heretofore cited is exactly in point, the court also stating in part: Under the provisions of the amendment in chapter 94, Laws Utah 1913, the garnishee became liable to the plaintiff from the time of the service of such writ to the amount of any property or indebtedness belonging to or due to the defendant, or in its custody or control, and is required to make answer to the writ showing such property or debt. It will thus be seen that service of the writ upon the garnishee made the garnishee liable for such property, and not the return which the officer is required to make to the court of the action taken by him in the service of the writ. In view of what has been said, we think we should hold that whatever defect there is in the return of the sheriff here considered is not, under the facts as disclosed in this record, jurisdictional, but may be waived when the garnishee answers generally as it did in this case. That seems to be in complete harmony with Rood on Garnishment, Section 279 heretofore quoted where the author states that it is held that objections to the sufficiency of the return must be made before or at the time of answering the writ. We regret the length of this opinion. It is due to so many errors appearing in the record, some of which on first impression appeared to be fatal. But after thoughtful analysis and careful consideration of the numerous cases more or less directly bearing on the points involved herein, we have been constrained to conclude that we should agree with the trial court that these errors were not prejudicial, mainly in view of the fact  to summarize  that the attack on the judgment in the main suit is a collateral attack, and that the defects in the attachment and garnishment proceeding were not jurisdictional, but were waived by the appearance and answer of the garnishee. Thus we are led to an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court herein. An order to that effect will be entered. Affirmed. KIMBALL, C.J. and RINER, J., concur.