Commercial Corp. v. Krueger

ROSSMAN, J. Affidavits similar to that before us have been frequently upheld. In Silver Peak Mines v. Hanchett, 80 Fed. 990, the court in referring to an affidavit somewhat similar to the document before us tersely said: “The point that is raised is purely technical in its character and it goes simply to the form, and not the substance, of the affidavit. The true interpretation to be given to that affidavit is that it is the affidavit of M. A. Murphy, who is the attorney for the corporation. It is not susceptible, in my judgment, of any other judicial interpretation.” Similarly we believe that the document before us is the affidavit of C. A. Boyle, secretary of the corporation. Other holdings to similar effect are, Hotaling & Co. v. Brogan, 12 Cal. App. 500 (107 Pac. 711); Moline etc. Co. v. Curtis, 38 Neb. 520 (57 N. W. 161); Thedin v. First Nat. Bank of Savage, 67 Mont. 65 (214 Pac. 956); we hold the affidavit sufficient. Both reason and authority uphold the sufficiency of the copy of the writ served upon the garnishee. The seal’s only function is to evidence the validity of the writ, but it is not a part of the writ; hence it is not necessary to refer to it in the copy *537 served: Lyon v. Baldwin, 194 Mich. 118 (160 N. W. 428, L. R. A. 1917C, 148, annotated); Cameron v. Wheeler, 6 Q. B. U. C. 355; Sietwan v. Goeckner, 127 Ill. App. 67; Kelley v. Mason, 4 Ind. 618; Hughes v. Osburn, 42 Ind. 450; Elramy v. Abeyounis, 189 N. C. 278 (126 S. E. 743); Peters v. Crittenden, 8 Tex. 131; Herold v. Coates, 88 Neb. 487 (129 N. W. 998). See, also, Watson v. Morton, 18 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 138; 32 Cyc. 460; 21 R. C. L., Process, § 72. Affirmed. Rand, C. J., and Coshow and McBride, JJ., concur.