tiff (insurance company), in which the notes sued on had been attached in his hands as garnishee, judgment obtained against him and the notes paid, the evidence was held inadmissible; but he, the garnishee, "might have protected himself against a double liability by notify. ing the holder of the notes of the attachment, and calling upon him to interplead; or, if he could not ascertain the holder, he might have shown the nature of the paper and its actual transfer, which would have been an answer to the attaching creditor." Flanagan v. Mechanic's Bank of Philadelphia, 54 Pa. St. 398; Day v. Zimmerman, 68 Pa. St. 72.

Note Assigned-Notice. The payee of a note drawn in this State in 18IO assigned it before its maturity, in New York, to S.; but, as it was then in this State, it was not actually indorsed and delivered until a fortnight later, and five days after the maker had been factorized as the debtor of the payee. Nine days before that process was served, the assignee mailed a letter at New York to the maker, notifying him of the assignment, which was never received. Held, that, the note, being a specialty, notice of the assignment was indispensable to make it hold against a factorizing creditor, and that the mailing of the assignee's letter was not equivalent to notice." Judah v. Judd, 5 Day (Conn.), 536.

But it is held that, if foreign attachment is served on garnishees before they receive notice of assignment, the claim of the assignees is not therefore postponed to that of the attaching creditors. Noble v. Thompson Oil Co., 79 Pa. St. 354; s. c., 21 Am. Rep., 66, 72 and cases there cited.

Non-negotiable Note Notice. — "G. being indebted to T., gave him his note payable to the order of and indorsed by

N.

T. had it discounted before its maturity, in New York, where such a note was negotiable, though in this State it was not. Subsequently G., who had no notice of this, was factorized as the debtor of T. Held, that he was not indebted, since T. never had anything more than an equitable interest, under our laws, which might well be transferred without notice; while, on the other hand, by New York law, he had an absolute title, and might well transfer an absolute title without notice, as he did when he procured the discount of the note." Green v. Gillet, 5 Day (Conn.), 488.

Promissory Note as a Chattel.-A note or bond "cannot be levied on and sold at a judicial sale as a chattel." 'Semble: A note deposited in pawn may be attached

་་

under an attachment and execution against the owner; but it is proper to return specifically what goods, etc., were attached." Rhoads v. Megonigal, 2 Pa. St. 39.

Note Not Due at the Time of Service, Liable to Trustee Process.-When the writ was served upon trustees (a firm). they were indebted to the attachment defendant, a railroad company (a foreign corporation). One of the trustees held the note of the railroad company at the time of service for nearly the whole amount. It became due before the date of the disclosure. At maturity it was credited to the firm (the trustees) and the note given up to the railroad company. Yet it was held that the trustees were chargeable for the whole of their indebtedness to the company at the time of the service, though it was not then all due. Donnell v. Portland, etc., R. Co., 76 Me. 33; s. c., 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 139; Marratt v. Equity Ins. Co.. 54 Me. 537, 540. Compare Ingalls v. Dennet, 6 Me. 79. Had the note been due at the time of service, and remained in the possession of the one partner holding it, it might have been used as set-off. Robinson v. Furbush, 34 Me. 509.

Bank Check.-It was held, in Fulweiler v. Hughes, 17 Pa. St. 440, in reference to statute, that a check, though not due and payable, may be attached; that the bona fide holder, who purchased it for value from one to whom the payee had made a gift of it, has title against the creditors of the payee, who was insolvent at the time of the gift, the purchaser knowing of the gift, but neither he nor the donee having knowledge at the time of the insolvency of the donor. Though the check was recoverable by creditors of the donor whilst it was in the hands of the donee, his sale for value, without knowledge by the purchaser of the insolvency of the donor, passed to the purchasers a good title.

Municipal Bonds." Where one obtained a judgment against a firm, issued an attachment thereon, and attached, in the hands of another firm, a debt payable in city bonds due by them to one of the firm defendants, and the court entered judgment upon the answers of the garnishees, with leave to the plaintiff to have execution against them for the debt, interest, and costs, and directed the sheriff to demand of them so many of the bonds as would, at their assessed value, satisfy the judgment and the costs, but, if the garnishee failed to deliver the bonds, then to levy the amount from their own goods and lands, the proceed

ings under the attachment were proper, and the entry of the judgment thereon was not erroneous." King v. Hyatt, 41 Pa. St. 229.

1. Bank Stock.-Stock of a bank, sold bona fide, and the certificate delivered to the purchaser with a power of attorney to transfer it on the books of the bank, was held "not liable to attachment as the property of the vendor, although still standing in his name on the books at the time of the attachment. A chose in action, equitably assigned, held, not subject to attachment as the property of the assignor. The plaintiff, in a foreign attachment, stands upon no better footing, as to the thing attached, than his debtor, the defendant in the attachment. United States v. Vaughan, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 394. Stock standing in the debtor's own name on the books of a corporation may be seized under attachment process or execution. Weaver v. Huntingdon, etc., R. Co., 50 Pa. St. 314; Peterson v. Sinclair, 83 Pa. St. 250; Shenandoah, etc., R. Co. v. Griffith, 76 Va. 913; s. c., 13 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 120; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Paine, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 502.

'A share of bank stock attached cannot be transferred on a judgment in foreign attachment," the bank having been garnisheed. Gardiner v. Pa. Bank, 4 Yeates (Pa.), 377.

"The defendants, residing in Indiana and owning stock in a bank located there, lodged a certificate of the stock, with a blank power to sell and transfer it, with a corporation in this State, as collateral security for a loan, its value being considerably in excess of the loan. Held, that their equitable interest in the stock could not be reached by process of foreign attachment in this State." Winslow v. Fletcher, 53 Conn. 390. Compare Middletown Savings Bank v. Jarvis, 33 Conn. 372; Cooke. Hallett, 119 Mass. 148.

2. Whether the shares of a stockholder can be subjected to garnishment by making the corporation in which they are held the garnishee in a suit against the

stockholder, has been a subject upon which courts have differed. The affirmative has been held.-Chesapeake R. Co. 7. Paine, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 502; In re Glen Iron Works, 17 Fed. Rep. 324-and the egative, -Ross v. Ross, 25 Ga. 297; Planters & Merchants' Bank v. Leavens, 4 Ala. 753. "Whatever view may be taken as to the right to attach a debt owing by a foreign corporation to a non-resident, by service of notice on an agent of the corporation within the jurisdiction, we think, in respect to corporate stock, which is not a debt of the corporation in any proper sense, it would be contrary to principle to hold that it can be reached by such a notice. We are therefore of opinion that the fundamental condition of attachment proceedings that the res must be within the jurisdiction of the court in order to an effectual seizure-is not answered in respect to shares in a foreign corporation by the presence here of its officers, or by the fact that the corporation has property and is transacting business here; and that section 647 [N. Y. Code] must be construed as applying to domestic corporations only.' Plimpton v. Bigelow, 93 N. Y. 592. This doctrine is further supported: Moore v. Grunett, 2 Tenn. Ch. 375; Christmas v. Biddle, 13 Pa. St. 223 Childs . Digby, 24 Pa. St. 26; Drake on Attach. (6th Ed.), §§ 244, 4718; Waples on Attach. & Garn., 245-8.

One who has subscribed but not paid for stock in a corporation may be garnished as the debtor of the corporation in a suit against it, whether the defendant be resident or not. Meintz v. East St. Louis Rail Mill Co., 87 Ill. 48; Pease 7. Underwriters' Union, 1 Ill. App. 285; Langford v. Ottumwa Water-Power Co., 59 Iowa, 283. Compare McKelvey v. Crockett, 18 Nev. 238. He is aiso garnishable for unpaid assessments due to the corporation in a suit against it. Faull v. Alaska G. & S. M. Co., 8 Sawy. (U. S.) 420; Hays 7. Lycoming Ins. Co., 99 Pa. St. 621; Bingham v. Rushing, 5 Ala. 403.

1. Partnership Interest of One Member. -In order to adjudge the trustee responsible in this suit, it must be decided that the funds of one partner may be applied to the payment of the debts of another partnership on the mere proof that the principal debtor has an interest in each firm.

If this be correct, it will follow that a separate creditor of one partner will have greater equitable, as well as legal rights, than the partner himself has. The general rule undoubtedly is that the interest of each partner in the partnership funds is only what remains after the partnership accounts are taken; and, unless upon such an account the partner be a creditor of the fund, he is entitled to nothing. And if the partnership be insolvent, the same effect follows. Lyndon v. Gorham, I Gall. (C. C.) 367 (Story, J.); Church v. Knox, 2 Conn. 614; Winston v. Ewing, 1 Ala. 139; Barry v. Fisher, 39 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 521; Johnson v. King, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 233; Towne v. Leach, 32 Vt. 747; Fisk v. Herrick, 6 Mass. 271; Peoples' Bank v. Shryock, 48 Md. 427.

Partnership Property. In a proceeding by summons against one resident partner, and foreign attachment against a nonresident partner, it was held that the partnership property cannot be taken under the foreign attachment-only the separate property of the non-resident-under the laws of Pennsylvania. White and Schnebly's Case, 10 Watts (Pa.), 217. But lately it was held that "partnership effects are liable to be attached by process of foreign attachment in a suit brought against one of the partners to recover a private debt due by him, Morgan v. Watmough, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 125; McCarthy v. Imlen, 2 Dall. (Pa.) 277;— and the question thus settled.

"Where a debt is owed by a copartnership only one member of which resides in this State, it may be attached by process of foreign attachment, by leaving a copy of the writ with the resident member." Flagg v. Pratt, 32 Conn. 217.

Partners Non-resident.-If partners reside out of the State, property belonging to one of them may be attached within the State for the firm debt; and the fact that there is a co-obliger need not be dis

closed. Dobbs v. The Justices, 17 Ga. 624.

It

Though the partnership may have been domiciliated within the State, while the partners themselves are non-residents, their property may be attached, after the dissolution of the firm, for its debts. Lobdell v. Bushnell, 24 La. Ann. 295. seems that, before dissolution, the property of such a partnership may be attached, if the partners are non-residents. Voorhees v. Hoagland, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 232. But if one of two partners is a resident, the goods of the firm are not attachable because the other lives out of the State. Wallace v. Galloway, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 510.

Partnership-Misjoinder. -Attachment was sued out against three alleged partners on the ground that they "reside out of the State of Georgia," and it was levied by serving a summons of garnishment on a person indebted to them or possessed of property belonging to them. They appeared and dissolved the garnishment by giving security for the debt. On the hearing, it appeared that the firm sued was not indebted to the plaintiff, but that one of the three members of it was also a member of another firm, which was indebted to the plaintiff. The other two were released and their names stricken from the declaration; but the court refused to allow the names of the remaining defendant's copartners in the second firm to be inserted. The suit was against the wrong partnership. There could be no judgment on the bond, and no general judgment against the only remaining defendant in his individual capacity. Howes v. Patterson & Co., 76 Ga. 689. But one of several tenants in common would have been liable. Waiter v. Kienstead, 74 Ga. 19.

Joint and Joint and Several Obligations.-A firm's property cannot be subjected to foreign attachment because a member is a non-resident, and is the defendant in the suit in which the property of his firm is sought to be made liable for the partnership debt. It cannot be under the common law, which requires that partners be jointly sued. Wiley . Sledge, 8 Ga. 532. But if the obligation be joint and several, the firm's property might be successfully attached in a suit against the