Arky v. Cameron
Arky v. Cameron
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court in response to the suggestion of error.
We have given careful attention to the suggestion of error filed by learned counsel in this case. They insist that the action of this court should have been a reversal of the judgment of the circuit court and a remand for a procedendo to the court of the justice of the peace, thus giving Arky an opportunity to seek his remedy in a court of equity. Of course, whatever we might do, we could make no suggestion, nor could we express
Counsel are right, this court in the opinion referred in one place to the motion to quash as a motion to dismiss. The word “dismiss” was either an inadvertence of the judge who rendered the opinion or a mere oversight of the stenographer; but, in either case, it had not the slightest effect upon the meaning of’ the opinion, and could not possibly have misled anybody — the-language of the original opinion being this: “In the circuit court the two cases were consolidated, and Cameron moved to quash the writ of certiorari because the record showed that there was no answer filed to the writ of garnishment. On the hearing of this motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari, the court overruled the motion and sustained the writ.”
Learned counsel are also right in their criticism of the expression in the original opinion of the words “consequent judgment of the court that Cameron recover his costs from the garnishee.” This would have been, of' course, as discoverable from the full opinion, that Cameron recover his judgment and costs from the garnishee; the words “judgment and” being omitted in haste and by mistake. However, the expressions of an opinion are not controlling, because it is the judgment itself which speaks for the court, and the judgment in this case is in precise conformity with the statute (Code 1906, § 90), which directs that, “in case, of an affirmance of the judgment of the-justice, the same judgment shall be given as on appeals.” The conclusion of this court was that the judgment of the court below was in effect an affirmance of the judgment of the justice of the peace, and, under the statute, the judgment which it indicates must follow the affirmance.
We are compelled, therefore, to hold that this suggestion of error should be, as it now is, overruled.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Louis H. Arky v. William D. Cameron
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Justices op the Peace. Certiorari. Code 1906, § 90. Trial. Garnishment. Defective record. Jury trial. Under Code 1906, §-90, governing certiorari proceedings from justice courts and confining the circuit court to an examination of questions of law arising on the record, the circuit court should not award a trial by jury to determine whether a garnishee, at whose instance the writ was granted, had or had not made answer in the justice court exempting him from judgment by default in plaintiff’s favor, although the record, failing to contain the answer, showed a notation by the justice of the peace that the garnishee’s answer denied all indebtedness, followed by a default judgment against him. 2. Supreme Court Practice. Correct judgment. Harmless error. Where it is apparent that a correct result was reached by the trial court, the supreme court will not reverse the judgment because of precedent non-prejudicial errors in the-proceedings. 3. Garnishment. Answer of garnishee. Code 1906, § 2342. Under Code 1906, § 2342, specifying the several matters to be con tained in the answer of a garnishee, an answer is.not sufficient if it simply deny all indebtedness.