Rippen v. Schœn

Pitthan & Bartel, who had a judgment against Juergen Schcen, caused Sebastian Rippen to be summoned to answer as garnishee of said Schcen.

Judgment was rendered in the court below against Rippen, and he appeals to this court.

We are very clearly of opinion that the judgment below was unauthorized by the evidence, and it must, therefore, be reversed.

Rippen’s answer denied all indebtedness at the date of the service of the writ, and the burden was on Pitthan & Bartel to disprove this answer. Wilhelmi v. Haffner, 52 Ill. 222.

The ground upon which Rippen is sought to be charged is, he had bought a…