latitude in the examination of such a witness. On recross-examination, counsel for respondent was allowed to cross-examine as much as he desired. The matter objected to was within the discretion of the court, and in allowing the answer to stand the court committed no error.

The second and third assignments of error may be considered together. They allege error in overruling defendant's motion to be discharged on the ground that there was no evidence to support the charge in the information, and that there was a fatal variance between the averments of the information and the evidence in the case. The first proposition would seem to indicate that it is the contention on the part of respondent that under an information charging the statutory offense of unlawfully keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold, stored for sale, given away, or furnished in any local option county, charged as in this case to have been conducted for six months, it requires proof tending to show continuous operation during the period alleged. The evidence in the case tended to show that intoxicating liquors were sold by respondent at his place on December 23, 1913, and also on one earlier date, which is not fixed with certainty. The weight to be given to this evidence was a matter for the jury to determine, and the court in his charge fairly and carefully submitted this question to the jury, to which charge no exception was taken.

The jury, from the verdict rendered in the case, evidently believed the testimony of these witnesses, and in our opinion the verdict was justified. We are satisfied that the evidence supported the charge that respondent was guilty of keeping a place in the city of Hillsdale where intoxicating liquors were sold contrary to the provisions of the local option law. We find no error in the case.

The conviction is therefore affirmed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court, to take such steps as may be necessary to carry such conviction into effect.

BROOKE, C. J., and KUHN, STONE, OSTRANDER, BIRD, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ., concurred.

CITIZENS' BANK OF RUDYARD v. CHIPPEWA CIRCUIT JUDGE.

1. CONFLICT OF LAWS-PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW-JURISDICTION -ACTION PENDING.

When a foreign railroad company incorporated also in Michigan is sued in both jurisdictions, the forum which first acquires jurisdiction is entitled to proceed with the

cause.

2. GARNISHMENT-LIEN-PRECEDENCE.

By service of the writ of garnishment, the foreign court obtained a first specific lien upon the debt, the situs of which became fixed.

3. SAME CLAIMANT-INTERVENING PARTY.

Where a railroad company was garnished in a foreign State, and a third party claimant was cited in as authorized by statute, it became a party to the proceeding to the same extent and with equal responsibilities as its assignor, the principal defendant.

4. SAME-ABATEMENT.

The existence of a pre-existing action in such foreign jurisdiction being duly presented to the court, it properly held the action in abeyance pending a disposition of the first cause.

Mandamus by the Citizens' Bank of Rudyard against Louis H. Fead, circuit judge for the county of Chippewa, to vacate a stay of proceedings in an action in which the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company was defendant. Submitted April 27, 1915. (Calendar No. 26,609.) Writ denied June 7, 1915.

Albert E. Sharpe and M. M. Larmonth, for relator. Warner & Sullivan, for respondent.

In this proceeding we are asked for a mandamus to require the respondent to set aside an order in a suit now pending in the circuit court for the county of Chippewa, in which the petitioner is the plaintiff, and the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company is defendant. The action is in assumpsit, and the defendant pleaded in abatement certain foreign garnishment proceedings, the facts concerning which are admitted, and are stated in the opinion of the lower court as follows:

"(1) The defendant is a railroad corporation, incorporated in the States of Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, having lines of railroad and doing business in the States of Michigan and Minnesota, with its principal office or headquarters at Minneapolis, Minn.

"(2) On September 29, 1913, defendant offered to purchase certain railroad ties from one C. F. Sheldon, a resident of Michigan, which offer was acted upon by Mr. Sheldon, who completed the delivery of such ties on or about October 31, 1913. The ties were delivered in Michigan for the use of defendant on that part of its road situated in this State. The agreed price of the ties delivered was $1,064.50.

"(3) Before the delivery the plaintiff herein, a resident of Michigan, received from Sheldon an assignment of his account against the defendant in the form following:

""RUDYARD, MICHIGAN, Oct. 14, 1913.

"E. T. STONE, Purchasing Agent,

""Soo Road,

"Minneapolis, Minn.

"Please pay to Citizens' Bank of Rudyard, Michigan, any money now due or to become due for ties shipped on your offer to me of September 29, 1913.

[Signed] "C. F. SHELDON.'

"(4) On October 16, 1913, plaintiff mailed said order to defendant at Minneapolis, where it was received by the latter on or about October 18th. Accompanying the order was a letter written by plaintiff as follows:

""E. T. STONE,

"Minneapolis.

"Dear Sir:

"'RUDYARD, MICH., Oct. 16, 1913.

""Inclosed find order given by Mr. Sheldon. As I understand it, he expects to load ties here and that you are to forward payments of same to us.

"'W. M. BATDORFF, Cashier.'

"(5) On November 7, 1913, garnishment process was served on defendant in the State of Minnesota, in a suit in the district court of the eleventh judicial district of Minnesota, in the county of St. Louis, between the McGillis & Gibbs Company, a corporation, as plaintiff, and said C. F. Sheldon, as defendant. A transcript of the proceedings was offered in evidence.

"These garnishment proceedings purport to be based upon a judgment rendered in the municipal court for the city of Duluth in a suit between the McGillis & Gibbs Company and Sheldon, on December 30, 1910. A transcript of the judgment was filed in said district court on January 4, 1911. The proceedings in the municipal court are not set up, nor does it appear whether service, or what kind, was had upon Sheldon. In the affidavit for transcript, made on January 3, 1911, Sheldon is said to be a resident of St. Louis county. In the garnishment proceedings, on November 11, 1913, he is said to be, and is proceeded against as, a nonresident of Michigan.

"The disclosure of the garnishee is not set up in the

transcript. However, on December 26, 1913, some proceedings were apparently had for the purpose of bringing in the plaintiff herein as claimant to the debt, but they were apparently abandoned.

"On May 19, 1914, a new order, requiring plaintiff to appear within 20 days after service of the order on him and prove its claim or be barred was made and personally served on the plaintiff in this county of Chippewa on June 6, 1914. This order appears to have been made by the court, and is attested by the clerk of the court through his deputy. On July 2, 1914, counsel for plaintiff in such suit gave notice to defendant garnishee that on July 11, 1914, it would move the court to bar plaintiff's claim and for judgment against the garnishee. Whether such action was taken does not appear. Notice of the pendency of the suit at bar seems to have been given in such garnishee suit on July 18, 1914.

"The examining officer is the clerk of the district court. By what authority he became examining officer does not appear.

"This transcript was admitted tentatively over the objection of plaintiff's counsel that it was not a complete transcript of the proceedings; that the judgment upon which the garnishment proceedings are based was rendered in a municipal court, and no copy of the complaint therein appears in the transcript; and that there is no proof of any service, either personal or substituted; and also, generally, that it would constitute no defense to plaintiff's action.

"(6) On April 1, 1914, suit was begun in the district court of the fourth judicial district of Minnesota, in the county of Hennepin, by Page & Hill Company, a Minnesota corporation, as plaintiff, against said C. F. Sheldon, as defendant. On April 25th an affidavit of his nonresidence was made, and he was proceeded against as a resident of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. A copy of summons was mailed to him on July 24, 1914, and publication begun July 29th.

"Garnishee process was served on defendant, April 4th. One D. E. Bridgman was appointed examining officer by the judge of said court. On April 25th the garnishee defendant made its disclosure, setting up that:

186 Mich.-32.