that the appearance by Carter & Haile for the defendants is an appearance
for Bunch, but as the suit was against a partnership and either partner could
represent the partnership, the employment by and appearance of
Carter and Haile for the partnership does not necessarily imply an
appearance for Bunch individually. The ground of the motion is
that the Judgment is illegal & void because at the time of suit the
partnership was dissolved and Bunch was not served with process,
and did not appear and the Court did not have Jurisdiction to render
Judgment against ****** - The Judgement however is against the firm
& while the motion is broad and while I am not satisfied the
Judgment against the firm was void -, I do not think the facts of
the case authorize the issuance of a garnishment against the
individual moneys & property Bunch In § 48 Brown on Jurisdiction there
is a clear exposition of the law applicable to this case.
As to the constitutionality of Statutes as our § 1017 there appears to
be a conflict of authority, the author bearing against the
constitutionality of the law - He admits however, that service on one
partner is sufficient to get a Judgment which will bind partnership
property, but insists that such a Judgment should not bind
the individual property of partners not served, nor appearing
Especially is this time after dissolution of the partnership, see
Bates on Partnership §§ 1088 to 1092 inclusive -
To allow to a Judgment entered against a partnership upon
service upon one only of the parties the effect of binding the
individual property of those parties not served is it seems to
me repugnant to the fundamental principle, that every one
should have the right and opportunity to appear and defend a
suit before Judgment is pronounced. I can not hold the Judgment
in this case to be void, but outside of this allegation, there is
enough alleged to satisfy me that no process should issue upon it
against the individual property of Bunch. The motion to quash
the writ of garnishment issued against the individual property
of J.F. Bunch is granted and said writ is hereby quashed.
I will add further that it seems to me that an attack on a
Judgment should be made in Equity while an attack or
process cans be made by motion my ruling in this case does not
deal with Judgment except to examine its effect & Extent but only
deals with the garnishment process. If any other in the premises
is necessary it will be made on application
         Ocala Fla June 1st 1899
To the foregoing ruling             W.A. Hocker
the plaintiff C.B. Rogers & Co              Judge
except   June 1st 1899
               W.A. Hocker
                         Judge
Filed June 2nd 1899 Recorded June 7th 1899
                         H.C. Denton Clerk
                         pr S.H. Wienges DC