Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. Commercial Casualty Insurance

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case a writ of attachment was issued upon a judgment held by tbe appellant company against one Raymond K. Tongue and was. returned laid in the hands of the appellee1 company as garnishee. That company, as garnishee, filed its plea thereto stating' therein that-it, “at the time of laying the attachment in its hands it had not, nor at any time since has had, nor now has any of the goods, chattels or credits of the said' defendant in its. hands.” A replication was filed thereto', in which it wras stated that “the garnishee had at the time of the laying of the attachment in its hands the sum of one hundred dollars of the defendant.” As a rejoinder thereto the, garnishee alleg’ed that at such time “it had no funds whatever in its hands due the said Raymond K. Tongue”; and upon joinder of issue thereon the case was tried by the Court without the intervention of a jury. Testimony was taken at the trial of the- ease and when concluded the Court announced its verdict in favor1 of the garnishee.

To which verdict the plaintiff excepted. Thereafter the plaintiff filed its. motion for a new trial which was overruled and this appeal was taken by the plaintiff from the judgment entered upon said verdict. The record does not disclose that in the trial of the case any motions wore made or any exceptions taken to the admission or rejection of testimony, nor was the Court asked to-pass on any proposition of law. The only exception appearing in the record is the exception to the “verdict” which was the determination of the Court upon the weight and effect of the testimony offered in support of. the issues joined.

This' Court in Tinges v. Moale, 25 Md. 485 , said: “In this case, we can not examine the; facts in evidence in the bill of