The defendant is sued for neglecting to make an affidavit as garnishee in a suit by the plaintiff against Payson in the Justice Court of Providence. The return day of the writ in the Justice Court was June 26, 1882. The defendant, by its clerk, upon whom the copy of the writ was served, made its affidavit, which was filed in the clerk’s office of the Justice Court June 20,1882. In a corner of the sheet, above the affidavit, were placed the words, “ Justice Court City of Providence, June 29, 1882.” The plaintiff therefore claims that the affidavit could not apply to the original case. We think the date was no part of the affidavit. It was a mere memorandum placed above it for convenience in reference. It is not referred to in the affidavit nor made a part of it in any way, but, on the contrary, the case is therein accurately designated. The affidavit was duly made, duly- filed, and sufficiently described the case to which it referred. The insertion of an erroneous date above the affidavit could not change those facts. It does not appear that there was any other case between the parties named to which the affidavit could relate. The defendant did all that is required of a garnishee by law. put the defendant was charged as trustee of said Payson by the Justice Court, the memorandum on the papers being, “ Prov. Machine Co. chg’d. no aff’t.” Hence the plaintiff in this action claims that such charging is in the nature of a judgment, which is conclusive upon this defendant.

As garnishment is a statutory proceeding, it is only by force of statute that the charging of a garnishee can in any case operate as a judgment. But, in those states where it has this effect, it is not conclusive as to the amount owing by the garnishee to the attachment defendant. Barton v. Allbright, 29 Ind. 489. Drake on Attachment, § 707, 4th ed. and cases cited. If so, as between, them, it cannot be conclusive as to whether anything is owing. The conclusiveness of a finding against a garnishee applies only to the suit in which it is made. The statutes of this State do not treat the charging of a garnishee as a judgment. By Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 208, § 18, if he makes a disclosure of funds in his hands, *11 the plaintiff may sue for the amount, or so much as will satisfy his judgment against the defendant. The execution does not run against the garnishee, though by cap. 222, § 21, it runs against the fund, without providing any immediate remedy if the garnishee refuses to turn it over. Even after an execution issues he may avoid his liability altogether by making an affidavit, under the provisions of § 22.

The only case in which the court acts judicially with reference to the garnishee is under cap. 213, § 10, to determine, in case he “ shall appear,” whether he “is properly chargeable as the trustee of the defendant, and, if chargeable, to what extent.” There is no provision in the statute for the court to charge a garnishee upon his default to make an affidavit. His liability in that case is determined by cap. 208, § 18, and is the same that it was before the passage of the act authorizing the court to determine the liability after appearance. Provision is made, cap. 222, § 21, “if the trustee shall be charged by his default,” that the execution shall run against “ the,personal estate of the said defendant in the hands and possession ” of the garnishee, “ charged as- trustee of the said defendant by the default of the said trustee to file his affidavit in said action.” But this charging must refer to the garnishee’s statutory liability, for no express authority is given to the court to charge him by default. It is possible to infer such an authority from the words quoted above, but such an inference would enlarge a statute which can be more plainly satisfied by reference to the statutory liability. If, therefore, a garnishee, in case of default, becomes liable by force of statute, and not by an adjudication of the court, the fact that he is “ charged by his default” cannot be regarded as a judgment. It follows that the defendant is not bound by the charging in the Justice Court, but may show, as he has done, that he duly filed his affidavit, and should not have been charged. Exceptions overruled.