Question 322.— Smith owes Jones, who cannot collect his debt. Jones hears that Brown is going to give Smith a cheque, and has a writ of garnishment issued and left at the chartered bank on which the cheque is drawn. The bank tells Smith that he had better go and arrange it with Jones, which Smith does. Could Smith have protested the cheque and held the bank liable ? What action should the bank have taken in that case if they had failed to avoid the main issue as they did? The teller in this case held the cheque presented by Smith under the writ of garnishment, but suppose Smith had demanded same through his lawyer?

Answer.—We are advised that the garnishee order is quite ineffective in such a case, and that if the bank refuses to pay the party presenting the cheque merely on the ground that the money was attached by the writ, it would be liable to the drawer of the cheque for damages for dishonouring his cheque. We understand that only monies due or accruing due can be held under garnishee proceedings. At the time the writ was served in the case mentioned, there was clearly no money due or accruing due to Smith.