The rule in Washington is apparently the same; superiority of claim is established by chronological priority in the service of a writ of garnishment. Lowman & Hanford Co. v. Ervin, 157 Wash. 649, 290 P. 221 (1930). Were there any difference between the rules of the two states, New York, as the forum, would apply its own procedural law, and any conflict between the procedures for ascertaining priority would be resolved in favor of the application of New York's procedure.

This is a consideration which is, of course, entitled to great weight. Lowman Hanford Co. v. Ervin, 157 Wn. 649, 290 P. 221. Yet, as the court observed in the Raine case itself, statutes do not spring up spontaneously in legislative chambers; nor do amendments to statutes.

This uniform construction has been placed upon the language of the statute for so long a period there has been abundant opportunity for the Legislature to give further expression to its will, but it has not seen fit to change the same. See 25 R. C. L., p. 956, par. 212; McCain v. State Election Board, 144 Okla. 85, 289 P. 759; Manley v. Mayer, 68 Kan. 377, 75 P. 550; Lowman H. Co. v. Ervin, 157 Wn. 649, 290 P. 221; People v. Bloom, 193 N.Y. 1, 85 N.E. 824, 127 Am. St. Rep. 931. It is argued further that the failure to publish notice for the full period provided by law did not have the effect of invalidating the deed involved herein for the reason that the same constituted a defect in the proceedings which had been cured by certain provisions in our statutes, hitherto unnoticed, which are referred to as prospective curative provisions.