Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/859

 an order atthe same timevacatingtihie;4ecreejlbuf.^lie |ajk^« tjQ do so does not, I ]think,iQakQ the,alia» procei^s yoid o;r irregular. The information the libellant's proctor.had wheo be applied for an orderthat prooess witLfpreign attachment issue, was such as to authorize it; and there is nothing to show a want of good faith on his client's part in îailing to communicate to his proctor ail that he knew about the prin- cipal defendant's residence and place of business. The issue of the allas process was justified by the state of the facta exist- ing when it issued, and it was duly served. Therefore, the ques- tion raised as to the service of the original process is imma- terial. The libel shouldhave been signed before process issued. It appears to have been signed by "Beebe, Wilcox & Hobba" as proctors, and verified, as appears by the officer's certifi- cate. I do not thinkthe failure of Mr. Beebe to sign it, which on the affidavits seems to be admitted, made the process void. It was a defeçt which. .would baye been cuf ed by amend- ment. But' no ameiidinent' taving' been allowed, the libel must be considered asistill njiwgped exceptby "Beebe, Wil- cox & Hobbs" as proctors. . I think if it was in fa,ct verified, and that appears by the certîficate, this is a defect the court is bound to overlook af ter judgment. Eev. St, § 964. ' ^ �The libellant being named by his initiais is immaterial. It �does npti prejudice thedçfend^nt. It might be c[uite otherwise �if an attempt were made to publish against a defendant by �his initiais. He might be, priejudiced thereby and the notice �,insufficient. Frank v.Levief 5B.6b., 599. �Neither the principal nor. the garnishee show any very good reason for not appeaying. The garnishee appears to have supposed that it need not appear in obedience to the first process because it had no funds. It was so advised, This is the very reason why it should bave appeared. It suppoged it had funds when the second process was served, but nowfinds that another person claims the funds. I think, therefore, its default should be opened. The principal defendant appears to have had a proctor retained to attend to the business ail the time, and why no appearance was entered does not appear, anless it was because the whole proceeding waa regarded as ����