Burton v. Frame — 21 Del. 14

Majority

p. 14

William T. Burton of I., d. b., vs. Doctor Joseph K. Frame, p. b.

Headnote

Certiorari—Notice of Goods and Chattels attached—Judgment in favor of Plaintiff for Debt, and- against him for Costs— Judgment against Garnishee before Judgment against Defendant—Exceptions fatal.

The following exceptions were filed to the record of the Justice : I. The record did not show that public notice of the goods and chattels attached was gtven for one month by advertisements posted as by law required. 2. The record showed that the Justice rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum demanded, and against him for the costs. 3. The record showed that judgment was rendered against the garnishee bsfore judgment was rendered against the defendant. All the exceptions held fatal.

( April 7, 1904.)

Lore, C. J., and Spruance and Boyce, J. J., sitting.

Andrew J. Lynch for plaintiff in error.

Superior Court, Sussex County,

April Term, 1904.

Certiorari

(No. 51,

April Term, 1904),

to William H. Betts,' a Justice of the Peace in and for Sussex County.

The following exceptions were filed to the record, viz.:

First. For that the record does not show that public notice of the goods and chattels attached was given for one month by advertisements posted as by law required.

Rev, Code, 1893, Sec. 33, page 759.

p. 15

Second. For that the record shows that the Justice rendered judgment in favor of Dr. Joseph K. Frame, the plaintiff, for the sum demanded, $57.08; and the Justice rendered judgment for costs of said suit, $6,58, in favor of the defendant, William T. Burton of I, and against the plaintiff, Dr. Joseph K. Frame.

Third. For that the record shows that judgment was rendered against the garnishee, Charles Moore, before judgment was rendered against the defendant, William T. Burton of I.

All of the exceptions are fatal.

Let the judgment below be reversed.