HENBY V. GOLD PA&K MIKING CO. 11 �This coui-t cannot follow the court of appe^ls withodt obviously ignor- ing the plain and conclusive adjudication of the supreme court upon the same question in Town of Venice v. Murdock. �It must, therefore, be determined that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment, although he failed to show that the requisite number of taxables had assented to the issuiug of the bonds. ���Henbt and others v. Gold Park Mining Co. (Uircuii Court, D. (Jolorado. December 20, 1881.) �1. GABNISHMBNT— CODB OF COLOBADO, {{ 111, 112. �Sections 111 and^ll? of the Codeof Colorado, which provide that the defend- ant may release any property in the hands of the sherifl, by virtue of any writ of attachment, by executing an undertaking to redeliver on demand, if the plaintiff recover judgment in the action and the attachaient is not dissolved, the attached property to be applied to the payment of the judgment, etc., do not provide for discharging garnishees or giving bond as therein specifled. �On Motion for the Discharge of a Garnishee. �Sam. P. Rose, for plaintiff. �Wells, Smith de Macon, for defendant. �Hallett, D. J., {orally.) The sections of the Code to which reference was made do not provide for discharging garnishees on giving bond as therein specified; and I think that the language of the sections precludes the notion that the garnishees can be within its provisions. �The first section (111) declares that "the defendant may at any time release any property in the hands of the sheriff, by virtue of any writ of attachment, by executing an undertaking as provided for in the next section; and all the proceeds of sales and money collected by the sheriff, and all the property attached remaining in bis hands, shall be released from the attachment and delivered to the defend- ant, upon the justification of the sureties in the undertaking;" and the condition of the undertaking, as given in the next section, is that " the defendant will, if the plaintiff shall recover judgment in the action and the attachment is not dissolved, on demand redeliver such attached property so released to the proper officer, to be applied to the payment of the judgment, and that in default thereof the defend- ant and sureties will pay to the plaintiff the full value of the prop- erty 80 released." This certainly cannot be applicable to a debt due ��� �
