Court Opinion

ID: 6537627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:13:01.985303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:42.647369
License: Public Domain

By the Court, Dickinson, J. The garnishee moved the court to be discharged, because the plaintiff had failed to file.allegations and interrogatories within the time prescribed by the statute. The'statute lays down the rule upon the subject; but (hat part of it which reíales to the present case is merely a rule of- practice, td be controlled by sound legal discretion. The time for filing allegations and interrogations, like time for pleading, in ordinary cases, might doubtless be enlarged, upon a proper showing by the party. The enlarging of time to plead, is an every day’s practice; and the fact that they were permitted, to be filed after the time had expired, creates the presumption that the court deemed it proper to grant the indulgence. If, in enlarging the time, the rights of the garnishee were seriously affected, of course he could not be without remedy, or he would be allowed to come in and move to strike them from the files of the court, provided he made it appear that the indulgence ought not to be allowed. But here he rests, until the allegations and interrogatories are actually filed, and he asks to be discharged from the writ of garnishment; and he was discharged accordingly. It was improper to do this so long as the allegations and interrogatories were upon the file. The judgment of the circuit court is nothing more than discharging him from answering a legal process, which that court itself had put upon the record for the benefit of the plaintiff. The exception to the discharge was, therefore, well taken. Judgment reversed.