GOODE vs. HOLCOMBE and WIFE

GOODE vs. HOLCOMBE and WIFE. [GARNISHMENT ON" j'Ó-DGMENT.i] i. Pre-i'eqvAsUtié of final judgment‘ag’dinst defaulting g’árniéhei. — To authorize a hnal judgment againsb a garnishee whb has not answered, a judgment nisi must be first eiltered against him, and a set. fa. thereon must bo executed and returned, or two set. fa’s must bo returned “not found” by the sheriff Of the eoiüity in which the garnishment' was eSScntedi Appeal froiil tile Circuit Court of Shelby'. Tbe record dobs not show the name of the presiding-, judge. HefliN & Ií'oéüey, for appellant, [MAJORITY — R. W. WALTER, J.] R. W. WALTER, J. To authorize a final judgment against a garnishee, who has not answered, a judgment nisi must be first entered against-him, and then a scire facias issued thereupon, must be executed and returned j or two such notices must be returned “not found” by tbe sheriff of the county in which tbe garnishment was executed, Code, § 2545; Lowry v. Clements, 9 Ala. 422; Wood v. Russell, 22 Ala. 645; Dew v. Bank, 9 Ala. 323. In this case, tile garnishee- Goode did- not answer and, without rendering the conditional judgment, and issuing the scire facias required 'by tile statute,^ the court entered a final judgment against him. This was -erfatal ernm Judgment reversed, and cause remandedt