Cited by

383, 384 (Minn. 1897); North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Ladd, 20 N.W.

Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , .

and cases cited; Garner v. Reis, 25 Minn. 475 ; Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , .

Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , ; Leslie v. God- *437 frey, 55 Minn. 231 , ; Conroy v. Feree, 68 Minn. 325 , ; King v. Carroll-Porter B. & T. Co. 74 Minn. 470 , ; Parke, Davis & Co. v. Mewhirter, 150 Minn. 234 , .

In Smith v. Barclay) 54 Minn. 47 , , the issue was as to the ownership of moneys in the hands of a garnishee.

Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , .

And see Mitchell, J., in Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , at page 55, .

S. 1894, § 5818; Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , .

Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , ; Conroy v. Ferree, supra.

Counsel for appellant has called attention to Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , .

The proper mode of procedure when a third party claims the property garnished is laid down in Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , .

See Greenleaf v. Egan, 30 Minn. 316 , ; Lace v. Fixen, 39 Minn. 46 , ; Peterson v. Ruhnke, 46 Minn. 115 , ; Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , .

But waiving this, and also the question' whether the allegations of plaintiff’s answer to the claimant’s intervention complaint did not stand admitted for want of a reply (see Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 ), there is no merit in the point.

The proper course or procedure in such a case, under the statute, has been quite clearly defined by the decisions of this court, especially Smith v. Barclay, 54 Minn. 47 , ( 55 N. W. Rep.