“'On April 4, A. D. 1914, the time of the service of garnishee summons herein on said garnishee, there was due and owing the defendant above named from said garnishee the sum of $1,064.50, as payment for ties delivered to the Soo Line at Rudyard, Mich., subject to a purported assignment to the Citizens' Bank of Rudyard, Mich., of all money due the said C. F. Sheldon from the said Soo Line Railway Company, of which the following is a true copy: [Here follows a copy of the order as above set forth]; that said purported assignment was forwarded with the following letter [letter as above set forth]. Said sum being further subject to a prior garnishment [setting up the St. Louis county proceedings].'

"On July 13th the examining officer made an order that plaintiff 'be notified to appear in this proceeding or be barred of its claim, and that said notice be served on such bank by three weeks' published notice thereof in a newspaper published in Hennepin county, Minn., and by mailing a copy of such notice to said bank before the first publication thereof, addressed to its place of business at Rudyard, Mich.'

"On July 13th the attorney for Page & Hill Company mailed a notice of the order made by the examining officer to plaintiff, and publication was had beginning July 29th, and ending August 12th. Twenty days after service was allowed plaintiff to appear. The transcript of these proceedings was offered and received in evidence under the objection of plaintiff's counsel that it is inadmissible and irrelevant, because, even if it is true, it would constitute no defense to plaintiff's action.' No other objection was made, and it has been assumed by counsel for both parties that these proceedings are regular and in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.

"(7) Plaintiff herein has not entered its appearance in said garnishment suits nor in any way acknowledged or submitted to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota courts.

"(8) The suit at bar was begun by summons issued June 16, 1914, and served on defendant June 17, 1914. Defendant appeared July 1st, and on September 24th filed a plea in abatement, setting up the garnishment proceedings in Minnesota, herein referred to, in abatement of the suit.

"(9) Plaintiff's action is brought as assignee of said Sheldon, and no other claim or debt is in controversy than the one hereinbefore stated. While the defendant does not expressly admit the good faith of the assignment, it does not question it in any way."

KUHN, J. (after stating the facts). The only question in the proceeding before us is whether the circuit court for Chippewa county acted properly in making the order to hold further proceedings in the suit there pending in abeyance during the pendency of the garnishment proceedings in the Hennepin county district court of Minnesota.

It appearing that the defendant had a permanent location both in the State of Michigan and in the State of Minnesota, it would seem that this would result in giving a sort of double situs to the debt. But it conclusively appears that the suit in the Minnesota court antedated the suit in this State; and therefore there cannot be any question that the Minnesota court thereby acquired jurisdiction.

By the garnishment service the Minnesota court also acquired a specific lien upon the debt, and its situs thus became fixed.

The relator being a claimant of the fund attached in the hands of the defendant railway company, as shown by its disclosure filed in the Minnesota court, and being notified in conformity with the statutes of Minnesota that its right to the fund was questioned, it became a party to the proceedings, in our opinion, to the same extent and with the same duty and responsibilities as Sheldon, its assignor and the principal defendant in the Minnesota suit. See Bragg v. Gaynor, 85 Wis. 468 (55 N. W. 919, 21 L. R. A. 161).

These foreign proceedings antedating the proceedings in this State, and having been properly called to

the attention of the trial court in this State, and it being conceded that they are regular, in our opinion, the court acted properly in holding the present suit in abeyance, and thus preventing a collision in the jurisdiction of the courts of two sovereign States. Harvey v. Railway Co., 50 Minn. 405 (52 N. W. 905, 17 L. R. A. 84).

The case of Butler v. Wendell, 57 Mich. 62 (23 N. W. 460, 58 Am. Rep. 329), is an authority cited and relied upon by relator, but we think that the case is readily distinguishable from the situation now before us. In that case there was no disclosure of an assignment which was made for the benefit of creditors, and both suits were in the courts of this State, subject to final disposition in the Supreme Court of this State, and therefore no question of conflict of jurisdiction or comity between States could arise.

In a recent case in Iowa, Steltzer v. Railway Co., 156 Iowa, 1 (134 N. W. 573), a question quite similar to the one here involved was determined by the supreme court of that State. An employee of the railroad company, working for it in Iowa, assigned his wages to the plaintiff. After the assignment, suit was started in Illinois against the employee, and the defendant was garnished in that State. The defendant disclosed the amount due, and set up the assignment to the plaintiff in its disclosure, and the plaintiff was notified of the proceedings in time to give him an opportunity to appear and defend; but he failed to appear or pay any attention to the proceedings, and judgment was rendered against the defendant for the fund. Subsequently, the plaintiff began suit in Iowa for the claim, being the assignee of the employee of the defendant. The court held:

"The court of Illinois had jurisdiction in the matter, and its judgment should be recognized, and the defendant as garnishee be protected by the courts of

this State. Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215 [25 Sup. Ct. 625, 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1084]."

We conclude that the writ of mandamus should be denied, with costs to the respondent.

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

REVOLINSKI v. MANISTEE & NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD CO.

1. RAILROADS-MASTER AND SERVANT-STATUTES-NEGLIGENCE. Where plaintiff was engaged in repair work in the employment of defendant railroad company, regularly working in the car shops, although his duties frequently took him outside to work upon engines, cars, machinery, and rolling stock, and it appeared that the car shop in which he usually worked was located a few feet from the roundhouse, that the engines and locomotives were put in the roundhouse for repairs and that plaintiff was injured as he was going to begin repair work upon an engine that was not in the roundhouse but standing on the repair track nearby, he was a shop employee within the meaning of section 7 of Act No. 104, Pub. Acts 1909 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 4116), and he was not entitled to recover for the negligence of a fellow-servant.

2. SAME.

A fellow-employee of the plaintiff engaged in work as a foreman who, in moving an engine from the roundhouse, permitted the steam dome to stand or remain upon top of the cab in backing the engine from the roundhouse, during which operation the dome struck the top of the doorway and was knocked off, striking plaintiff, was a

MASTER AND SERVANT-SHOP EMPLOYEE.

fellow-servant and not a vice-principal, and plaintiff was not entitled to recover from the defendant railroad company under the common law counts of his declaration. 3. SAME The effect of Act No. 104, Pub. Acts 1909, as to employees who were engaged in outside work, although employed in the shop, was not to except from its operation such employees as were working in the shops at the time of their injury merely, but was intended to relate to employees who were engaged in employment that might be distinguished by the general description of work in a shop or office.

4. SAME-ROUNDHOUSE.

The roundhouse in which engines are repaired and kept in the ordinary operation of the railroad is a shop within the meaning of the statute.1

Error to Manistee; Withey, J. Submitted April 8, 1915. (Docket No. 20.) Decided June 7, 1915.

Case by Peter Revolinski against the Manistee & Northeastern Railroad Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Wilson & Johnson, for appellant.

Benjamin & Betzoldt, for appellee.

STEERE, J. On April 3, 1912, while in defendant's employ as a car repairer in its shops at Manistee, Mich., plaintiff was struck and injured by a steam dome jacket falling from an engine which was being moved through a door of defendant's roundhouse, and later recovered, in the circuit court of Manistee county, a verdict and judgment of $550, as damages for personal injuries then sustained. Plaintiff's declaration contained two counts, one alleging negligence

'As to employees in shop, etc., within the purview of statutes abrogating the fellow-servant rule, see note in 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 117.