OBEETBUFFER V. HARWOOD. 829 �erty of the debtor. It is ancillary to the original suit, and is a mode of attaching property to secure any judgment ob- tained against the principal defendant. A response is re- quired to ail questions tending to draw ont faets that would disclose property in the possession of the garnishee which might render him liable. To this extent the inquiry may go. Whether the questions propounded are proper or not muet depend upon the circumstances of each case, and no partic- ular rules, universally applicable, can be laid down. Every question tending to further the object of the examination is material and proper. �The examination in this case shows a general assignment to the garnishee by the defendant for the benefitof creditors, and he expresses the opinion that he "had at the time of the service of the garnishee summons no property of the defend- ant in my possession or under my control." Such general answer is not the extent to which inquiry may go with refer- ence to such assignment. The plaintiffs are entitled to answers to ail questions which might show the garnishee a party to a fraudulent assignment. If upon "fuU disclosure" it should appear that the garnishee had no property, money, or effects of the defendant in his possession or control, then, if the plaintiffs desire to attack the assignment for the reason that, in their opinion, it is void, they must pursue the course pointed out in section 174, p. 735, Young's Statutes of Min- nesota. �The garnishee must answer the interrogatories. See Drake on Attachments, § 650, and authorities cited. ��� �
