Page images
PDF
EPUB

20

Si. 39.

· The payee

tiff (insurance company), in which the under attachment and execution notes sued on had been attached in his against the owner; but it is proper to hands as garnishee, judgment obtained return specifically what goods, etc., were against him and the notes paid, the evi- allached." Rhoads v. Megonigal, 2 Pa. dence was held inadmissible; but he, the garnishee, "might have protected him- Note Not Due at the 'Time of Service, self against a double liability by notify. Liable to Trustee Process.- When the ing the holder of the notes of the writ was served upon trustees (a firm). attachmen!, and calling upon him to they were indebted to the aliachment interplead; or, if he could not ascertain defendant, a railroad company (a foreign the holder, he might have shown the corporation). One of the trustees held nature of the paper and its actual trans- the note of the railroad company at the fer, which would have been an answer time of service fcr nearly the whole to the attaching creditor.” Flanagan v. amount. It became due before the date Mechanic's Bank of Philadelphia, 5.4 Pa. of the disclosure. At maturity it was St. 398; Day v, Zimmerman, 68 Pa. St. 72. credited to the firm (the trustees) and Note Assigned—Notice.

the note given up to the railroad comof a note drawn in this State in I$10 pany. Yet it was held that the trustees assigned it before its maturity, in New were chargeable for the whole of their York, to S.; but, as it was then in this indebtedness to the company at the time State, it was not actually indorsed and of the service, though it was not then all delivered until a fortnight later, and five due. Donnell v. Portland, etc., R. Co., days after the maker had been factorized 76 Me. 33; s. C., 9 Am. & Eng. R. R. as the debtor of the payee. Nine days Cas. 139; Marrall v. Equity Ins. Co., 54 before that process was served, the Me. 537, 540. Compare Ingalls v. Denassignee mailed a letter at New York to net, 6 Me. 79. Had the note been due the maker, notifying him of the assign- at the time of service, and remained in ment, which was never received. Held, the possession of the one partner holding that, the note, being a specialty, notice it, it might have been used as set-off. of the assignment was indispensable to Robinson 7. Furbush, 34 Me. 509. make it hold against a factorizing creditor, Bank Check.-It was held, in Fulweiler and that the mailing of the assignee's v. Hughes, 17 Pa. St. 410, in reference letter was

not equivalent to notice.” to statule, that a check, though noi due Judah v. Judd, 5 Day (Conn.), 536. and payable, may be attached; tbal the

But it is held that, if foreign attachment bona fide holder, who purchased it for is served on garnishees before they re- value from one to whom the payee had ceive notice of assignment, the claim of made a gift of it, has title against the the assignees is not therefore postponed creditors of the payee, who was insolvent to that of the attaching creditors. Noble at the time of the gift, the purchaser v. Thompson Oil Co., 79 Pa. St. 354; knowing of the gift, but neither he nor S. C., 21 Am. Rep., 66, 72 and cases there the donee having knowledge at the time cited.

of the insolvency of the donor. Though Non-negotiable Note — Notice. — “G. the check was recoverable by creditors of being indebted to T., gave him his note the donor whilst it was in the hands of payable to the order of and indorsed by the donee, his sale for value, without N. T. had it discounted before its knowledge by the purchaser of the ininaturity, in New York, where such a solvency of the donor, passed to the note was negotiable, though in this Stale purchasers a good title. it was not. Subsequently G., who had Municipal Bonds. —“ Where one ob. no notice of this, was factorized as the tained a judgment against a firm, issued debtor of T. Hell, that he was not in- an attachment thereon, and attached, in debted, since T. never had anything the hands of another firm, a debt payable more than an equitable interest, under in city bonds due by them io one of the our laws, which might well be transferred firm defendants, and the court entered without notice; while, on the other hand, judgment upon the answers of the garby New York law, he had an absolute nishees, with leave to the plaintiff to title, and might well transfer an absolute have execution against them for the title without notice, as he did when he debt, interest, and costs, and directed the procured the discount of the note.” sheriff to demand of them so many of Green v. Gillet, 5 Day (Conn.), 488. the bonds as would, at their assessed

Promissory Note as a Chattel.-A note value, satisfy the judgment and the costs, or bond "cannot be levied on and sold but, if the garnishee failed to deliver the at a judicial sale as a chattel.”. “Semble: bonds, then to levy the amount from A note deposited in pawn may be attached their own goods and lands, the proceed

4. Stocks.-Stocks in the defendant's name on the books of the corporation issuing them are attachable as his, unless he has honestly sold or disposed of them; and the transfer on the books may be enforced by the purchaser.1

The corporation is not debtor to the stockholders by reason of their owning shares, and should not be garnisheed as such, though there has been conflict on this point in decisions.? It seems clear that shares owned in a foreign jurisdiction are not reachable by attachment or garnishment. Their situs does not move with the corporation when it does business in different States, and, under

ings under the attachment were proper, stockholder, has been a subject upon and the entry of the judgment thereon which courts have differed. The asfirmawas not erroneous.” King v. Hyatt, 41 tive has been held, -Chesapeake R. Co. Pa. Si. 229.

7!. Paine, 29 Grati. (Va.) 502; In re Glen 1. Bank Stock. - Stock of a bank, sold Iron Works, 17 Fed. Rep. 324 ;-and bona fide, and the certificate delivered to the .egative,- Ross v. Ross, 25 Ga. the purchaser with a power of allorney 297; Planters & Merchants' Bank v. to transfer it on the books of the bank, Leavens, 4 Ala. 753. “Whatever view was held “not liable to attachment as may be taken as to the right to attach a the property of the vendor, although still debt owing by a foreign corporation to standing in his name on the books at the a non-resident, by service of notice on time of the attachment. A chose in an agent of the corporation within the action, equitably assigned, held, not sub- jurisdiction, we think, in respect to corject to attachment as the property of the porate stock, which is not a debt of the assignor. The plaintiff, in a foreign corporation in any proper sense, it would attachment, stands upon no better footing, be contrary to principle to hold that it as to the thing attached, than his debtor, can be reached by such a notice. We the defendant in the attachment.” United are therefore of opinion that the fundaStates v. Vaughan, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 394. mental condition of attachment proceedStock standing in the debtor's own name ings-that the res must be within the on the books of a corporation may be jurisdiction of the court in order to an seized under attachment process or execu. effectual seizure-is not answered in tion. Weaver u. Huntingdon, etc., R. respect to shares in a foreign corporation Co., 50 Pa. St. 314; Peterson v. Sin- by the presence here of its officers, or by clair, 83 Pa. St. 250 : Shenandoah, etc., the fact that the corporation has property R. Co. v. Griffith, 76 Va. 913; s. C., 13 and is transacting business here ; and Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 120; Chesapeake, that section 647 [N. Y. Code] must be etc., R. Co. v. Paine, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 502. construed as applying to domestic cor

“A share of bank stock attached can- porations only.” Plimpton v. Bigelow, not be transferred on a judgment in 93 N. Y. 592. This doctrine is further foreign attachment," the bank having supported : Moore v. Grunett, 2_Tenn. been garnisheed. Gardiner v. Pa. Bank, Ch. 375; Christmas 2'. Biddle, 13 Pa. St. 4 Yeates (Pa.), 377.

223 ; Childs v. Digby, 24 Pa. St. 26 ; “ The defendants, residing in Indiana Drake on Attach. (6th Ed.), SS 244, 471and owning stock in a bank located there, 8; Waples on Attach. & Garn., 245-8. lodged a certificate of the stock, with a One who has subscribed but not paid blank power to sell and transfer it, with for stock in a corporation may be gara corporation in this State, as collateral nished as the debtor of the corporation in security for a loan, its value being con- a suit against it, whether the defendant be siderably in excess of the loan. Held, resident or not. Meintz v. East St. Louis that their equitable interest in the stock Rail Mill Co., 87 III. 48; Pease v. Undercould not be reached by process of foreign writers' Union, i Ill. App. 255; Langford attachment in this State." Winslow 7. v. Ottumwa Water-Power Co., 59 lowa, Fletcher, 53 Conn. 390. Compare Middle. 283. Compare McKelvey v. Crockett, 18 town Savings Bank v. Jarvis, 33 Conn.

Nev. 238. He is aiso garnishable for 372; Cooke I. Hallett, 119 Mass. 148. unpaid assessments due to the corporation

2. Whether the shares of a stockholder in a suit against it. Fau!l v. Alaska G. & can be subjected to garnishment by mak- S. M. Co., 8 Sawy. (U. S.) 420 ; Hays ing the corporation in which they are 7'. Lycoming Ins. Co., 99 Pa. St. 621 ; held the garnishee in a suit against the Bingham v. Rushing, 5 Ala. 403.

statutory provision and its own assent, becomes amenable to process in all. 1

(a) Shares Owned Out of the State-Certificates Not Attachable.Stock certificates are not attachable when the shares which the certificates represent have their situs in another State. The shares owned, by a non-resident debtor, in a foreign corporation, sent into the State of the forum whence the attachment

sued out, are not reached by means of notice to a resident agent of the corporation. They are not really or constructively within the jurisdiction. Though the corporation may be doing business within the jurisdiction, under lawful authority to do so, that fact does not affect the situs of the shares. The corporation itself may be sued, but it not the debtor of the attachment defendant by reason of his owning stock in the bank or company at its domicile in another State, and therefore it cannot be garnisheed with reference to such stock. Considered as the res of an attachment proceeding, the stock must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, to render it attachable. Considered as a debt due from the corporation (which it is not), it must be payable within the jurisdiction, to be liable.2

5. Partnership Property.-The general rule seems to be that, while the property of a partnership may be attached for the debt of one partner, a debt due the firm cannot be reached by garnishment for such purpose; for the property would remain subject to whatever liens might rest upon it relative to the partnership, while judgment against a garnishee, for a debt due the firm, divests the co-partner's title, which would be inconsistent with the rule that

It was

1. Stock-Situs.--A foreign corporation, as well, by an ideal and constructive allowed to do business in Tennessee, was service on the person of a defendant resideemed domesticated when it had its dent in Mississippi, summon him to apchief office there; and its compliance with pear in our court, as to attach him to the legal requirements to become so was compel an appearance by attaching his presumed. Its stock was held to have bank stock in a bank located and estabsitus in that State under those circum- lished by law in Mississippi." Christmas stances, and to be attachable for the debt v. Biddle, 13 Pa. St. 223. of a non-resident owner holding the cer- Defendants, residing in Indiana, and tificates in his own State. Young & Fox owning stock in a bank there, pledged the v. South Tredegar Iron Co., 85 Tenn. certificate, with a blank power to sell and 189.

transfer, to a corporation in Connecticut 2. Stock Certificate.-A certificate of as collateral for a loan, its value being stock in a bank of another State, sent here considered in excess of the loan. [Pennsylvania] for sale, is not subject to held that their equitable interest in the foreign attachment. The Planters' Bank of stock could not be reached by foreign Mississippi owned shares of stock in the attachment in Connecticut. Winslow v. Commercial Bank of Natchez, which it Fletcher, 53 Conn. 390; . C., 55 Am. Rep. assigned in trust for creditors. In a suit on a judgment against the Planters' Bank, A transfer of stock in an incorporated the certificate for the shares, sent to company, when not entered on the books brokers in Philadelphia for sale, was of the company, is not valid as against sought to be attached in their hands. attaching creditors of the assignor without The court said: “ The attachment process notice. Iowa Code, § 1078. Fort Madi. is a proceeding in rem, and the matter son Lumber Co. v. Batavian Bank, 71 and thing attached must be in the power Iowa, 270; Ryan v. Campbell, 71 Iowa, and jurisdiction of the court. You might 760.

I 22.

the debts of the firm must first be paid and its accounts settled. Equitable rights between the attachment debtor and the garnishee cannot be adjusted in a garnishment proceeding ; nor can such proceeding be delayed until the settlement of the partnership affairs so that the portion belonging to the member against whom the attachment is directed shall have been ascertained. 1

Md. 127.

1. Partnership Interest of One Member. closed. Dobbs v. The Justices, 17 Ga. -In order to adjudge the trustee re- 624. sponsible in this suit, it must be decided Though the partnership may have been that the funds of one partner may be ap- domiciliated within the State, while the plied to the payment of the debts of an- partners themselves are non-residents, other partnership on the mere proof that their property may be attached, after the the principal debtor has an interest in dissolution of the firm, for its debts. each firm. If this be correct, it will fol- Lobdell v. Bushnell, 24 La. Ann. 295. It low that a separate creditor of one part- seems that, before dissolution, the properner will have greater equitable, as well as ty of such a partnership may be attached, legal rights, than the partner himself has. if the partners are non-residents. VoorThe general rule undoubtedly is that the hees v. Hoagland, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 232. interest of each partner in the partnership But if one of two partners is a resident, the funds is only what remains after the part- goods of the firm are not attachable benership accounts are taken; and, unless cause the other lives out of the State. upon such an account the partner be a Wallace v. Galloway, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) creditor of the fund, he is entitled to 510. nothing. And if the partnership be in. Partnership-Misjoinder. - Attachment solvent, the same effect follows. Lyn. was sued out against three alleged partners don v. Gorham, i Gall. (C.C.) 367 (Story, on the ground that they “reside out of J.); Church z. Knox, 2 Conn. 614; Win- the State of Georgia," and it was levied by ston v. Ewing. I Ala. 139; Barry v. serving a summons of garnishment on a Fisher, 39 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 521; Johnson person indebted to them or possessed of v. King, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 233; Towne property belonging to them. They apv. Leach, 32 Vt. 747; Fisk v. Herrick, 6 peared and dissolved the garnishment by Mass. 271; Peoples' Bank v. Shryock, 48 giving security for the debt. On the hear

ing, it appeared that the firm sued was not Partnership Property.-In a proceeding indebted to the plaintiff, but that one of by summons against one resident partner, the three members of it was also a member and foreign attachment against a non- of another firm, which was indebted to the resident partner, it was held that the part. plaintiff. The other two were released nership property cannot be taken under and their names stricken from the decla. the foreign attachment-only the separate ration; but the court refused to allow the property of the non-resident-under the names of the remaining defendant's colaws of Pennsylvania. White and partners in the second firm to be inserted. Schnebly's Case, 10 Watts (Pa.), 217. The suit was against the wrong partnership. But lately it was held that “ partnership There could be no judgment on the bond, effects are liable to be attached by pro- and no general judgment against the only cess of foreign attachment in a suit remaining defendant in his individual cabrought against one of the partners to pacity. Howes v. Patterson & Co., 76 Ga. recover a private debl due by him,"- 689. But one of several tenants in comMorgan v. Warmough, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 125; mon would have been liable. Waiter v. McCarthy v. Imlen, 2 Dall. (Pa.) 277;– Kienstead, 74 Ga. 19. and the question thus settled.

Joint and Joint and Several Obliga“Where a debt is owed by a copartner- tions. —A firm's property cannot be subship only one member of which resides jected to foreign attachment because a in this State, it may be attached by pro- member is a non-resident, and is the decess of foreign attachment, by leaving a fendant in the suit in which the property copy of the writ with the resident mem- of his firm is sought to be made liable for ber." Flagg v. Prait, 32 Conn. 217. the partnership debt. It cannot be under

Partners Non-resident.--If partners re- the common law. which requires that side out of the State, property belonging partners be jointly sued. Wiley 7. Sledge, to one of them may be attached within 8 Ga. 532. But if the obligation be joint the State for the firm debt; and the fact and several, the firm's property might be that there is a co-obliger need not be dis- successfully attached in a suit against the

6. Money.-When not in custodia legis, money may be attached, 1 though it cannot be taken from the possessor's person without his consent. It

may

be reached when in the hands of a third person, unless there is some character attached to it which renders it inviolable; as, pension-money in the hands of an agent or attorney to be paid to the pensioner. Whether money collected by an officer, under an execution, can be levied upon as belonging to the plaintiff in execution, depends upon the character of the officer's possession; that is, if it is in the custody of the law in such a sense that only the court can make disposition of it, the levy cannot be made-the officer cannot be garnisheed as the trustee of the execution plaintiff alias the attachment defendant. But it has been held that, when such funds are no longer awaiting judicial order or distribution, and have been already ordered to be paid to the plaintiff, the rule is otherwise.3

Money in the hands of a servant of the attachment defendant is not garnishable in a suit against the latter. 4

Money due on an insurance policy may be reached.5
Bonds payable in another State are not subject to garnishors.6

non-resident member. Drake on Attach. process of foreign attachment, for moneys (6th Ed.), $ 66; Green v. Pyne, i Ala. 235; due from him, in his public capacity, to Conklin 7. Harris, 5 Ala. 213.

another, and the payment of which must An averment, in the affidavit for attach- appear in his official accounts.” Stillman ment, that the defendants are indebted to ?'. Isham, ui Conn. 127; Spalding v. Imthe plaintiff, is sufficient to support evi- lay, 1 Root (Conn.), 551. dience of joint indebtedness. Geiges z'. 4. Money in the Hands of & Ticket Greiner, 2 Mich. (L. Ed.) 832; s, C.,5 New Agent. -An attachment execution against Eng. Rep. 546.

a railroad company cannot be levied on 1. Money Attachable. --Sheldon v. Root, money in the hands of its ticket agent, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 567; Turner v. Fendall, i arising from the sale by them of tickets to Cr. (C. C.) 127; Handy v. Dobbin, 12 passengers. Fowler v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Johns. (N. Y.) 220.

Co., 35 Pa. St. 22. 2. Pensions unpaid, not garnishable. 5. Money Due on Insurance Policy.-A Adams v. Newell, 8 Vt. 190; Hayward loss incurred on a fire-insurance policy, v. Clark, 50 Vt. 612. After the pensioner the amount of which is fixed by the award has received his pay, the money is not dis- of persons mutually chosen by the insured tinguishable from his other funds. Cranz v. and the insurer, may be levied on by atWhite, 27 Kan. 319; Webb v. Holt, 57 tachment in execution, as a debt due to the Iowa, 712. Compare Kellogg v. Waite, 12 insured. Boyle v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., Allen (Mass.). 529: Eckert v. McKee, 9 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 76; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. Bush (Ky.), 355.

v. West, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 350; Girard Fire 3. Money Payable to Plaintiff Under an etc., Ins. Co. v. Field, 45 Pa. St. 129. Execution - Whether Attachable in the A claim upon an insurer after loss, but Sheriff's Hands.---Drake on Attach. (6th before its adjustment, is subject to process Ed.), § 251: Waples on Attach. & Garn., of foreign attachment. Knox 2. Protec598, 599.

tion Ins. Co 9 Conn. 433. The rule that money in the hands of a 6. Non-resident's Property Under Garsheriff, in his official capacity, cannot be nishee's Control, but Out of the State.-In attached does not apply to an attachment an action brought in Kansas, against a made pending the levy; nor is the levy. railroad company of Missouri, the garas between the debtor and the creditor, a nishee answered that the defendant was satisfaction of the debt. Therefore, up to a foreign corporation; that it had bonds the time of the sale, there was a debt due of the county of Leavenworth, Kan., which to the plaintiff in execution, which was li- were in Missouri, and in his possession able to attachment at the suit of his credi- there as treasurer of the corporation, subtors. Winternitz's Appeal, 40 Pa. St. 490. ject to the orders of the board of directors; A public officer cannot be subjected, by and that he had no effects of the defendants

« PreviousContinue »