Barker v. President of Hartford Bank
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a scire-facias in a process of foreign attachment, in favour of The President, Directors and Company of the Hartford Bank against Bulhley .P. Barber, founded Upon a judgment against Walter E. Heyer and Jacob Burdett, late merchants in company under the firm of Heyer Burdettt in which they were described as absent and absconding debtors, and Barber was cited as their debtor.
Read the full summary
This was a scire-facias in a process of foreign attachment, in favour of The President, Directors and Company of the Hartford Bank against Bulhley .P. Barber, founded Upon a judgment against Walter E. Heyer and Jacob Burdett, late merchants in company under the firm of Heyer Burdettt in which they were described as absent and absconding debtors, and Barber was cited as their debtor. The heirs and legal representatives of Garrit Heyer, claiming to be the owners of the debt due from Barber, appeared and pleaded, that Barber was not the debtor of Heyer and Burdett, as claimed by the plaintiffs,…
1Opinion of the Court
Daggett, Ch. J.
The rejection of the evidence presents the question now to be considered and decided.
It will be recollected, that we are upon a question whether equity demands, that the money due from Barber should go to pay the debt of Heyer and Burdett to the Hartford Bank, I or should belong to the heirs of Garrit Heyer ? Is there any insurmountable objection to directing, that this debt j should belong to the heirs of Garrit Heyer ?
j In the construction of our statute respecting foreign attachments, the decisions have always been, that debts bona fide assigned should go to the assignees.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Church v. KnoxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
- Fisk v. HerrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Brewster v. HammetSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
- Sturges v. BeachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1816