382; Code, Tit. 7, § 227; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Green, 223 Ala. 121, 134 So. 881; Holland v. Fidelity Dep. Co., 225 Ala. 669, 145 So. 131; Fife v. Pioneer Lumber Co., 237 Ala. 92, 185 So. 759; Frazier v. Riley, 215 Ala. 517, 111 So. 10. The proceedings of defendant below seeking a dissolution of the writ of garnishment are the substantial equivalent of a plea in abatement, and the issues of fact therein should be determined by a jury. Dorrough v. Mackenson, 229 Ala. 336, 157 So. 257; Cooper v. Owen, 230 Ala. 316, 161 So. 98; Mann Lbr. Co. v. Bailey Iron Wks. Co., 156 Ala. 598, 47 So. 325; Code, Tit. 7, § 885; Free v. Howard, 44 Ala. 195; Free v. Hukill, 44 Ala. 197; Wright v. Snedecor, 46 Ala. 92; Horton v. Miller Bro., 84 Ala. 537, 4 So. 370; Wright v. Smith, 66 Ala. 545, 546; Johnston v. Hannah, 66 Ala. 127; Cassady v. Williams, 234 Ala. 299, 174 So. 485; Brown v. Massey, 3 Stew. 226; Frazier v. Riley, 215 Ala. 517, 111 So. 10; Kemper v. Walker, 241 Ala. 115, 1 So.2d 376; Gary v. Weiss, 239 Ala. 431, 195 So. 231. The defendant's demand for a trial by jury applies to the issues arising upon the defendant's proceeding to dissolve and quash the garnishment. Dorrough v. Mackenson, 229 Ala. 336, 157 So. 257; Daniel v. State, 149 Ala. 44, 43 So. 22; Bean v. State, 126 Ala. 1, 28 So. 578; Tucker v. State, 152 Ala. 1, 44 So. 587. The omission of the figure designating the day of the month when a garnishment bond was executed is not such a defect as would render the bond void when received and approved by the clerk of the court on a day certain.