Strict compliance for attachment of debt required; omission of court-house affixation rendered the garnishee attachment invalid.

Attachment of debt is effective only when the prescribed procedural steps are strictly completed; service of a prohibitory order on the debtor or garnishee alone is insufficient. The attachment provision requires the full mode of proclamation, including affixation of a copy of the order on a conspicuous part of the court-house. Because that step was omitted, the attachment was incomplete even though another copy had been served and initial compliance was indicated. The court therefore treated attachment as a real act distinct from the mere making of an order and set aside the direction requiring the bank to deposit the in court.

---

---

Issues: Whether an attachment of debt is valid where the prohibitory order is served on the debtor but no copy is affixed on a conspicuous part of the court-house as required by the procedure for attachment.

Analysis: Attachment of debt under the relevant civil procedure provisions is effected only by compliance with the prescribed procedural steps. The prohibitory order under the attachment provision is not by itself sufficient. The attached property must be subjected to the full mode of proclamation required by the rule, including affixation of a copy of the order on a conspicuous part of the court-house. The absence of that step means the attachment is not completed, even if another copy of the order has been served and the garnishee initially indicated compliance. The principle that attachment is a real act distinct from the mere making of an order requires strict observance of the prescribed manner of attachment.

Conclusion: The attachment was not validly effected, and the order directing the bank to deposit the amount in court was set aside in favour of the bank.

---