Hitt v. Lacey
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court ©f Tuskaloosa. THIS was an action of debt, on a promissory note by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant in error. At a subsequent term, the defendant pleaded filis darrien continuance, that one Howe, had sued out an attachment against the estate of Hitt, the plaintiff, and had garnisheed the defendant ; that the attachment was sued out after this cause was commenced and returnable to the same Court.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court ©f Tuskaloosa. THIS was an action of debt, on a promissory note by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant in error. At a subsequent term, the defendant pleaded filis darrien continuance, that one Howe, had sued out an attachment against the estate of Hitt, the plaintiff, and had garnisheed the defendant ; that the attachment was sued out after this cause was commenced and returnable to the same Court. That defendant had appeared and answered the garnishment, and admitted that he owed the amount of the note now sued on, and also, that he had been sued upon it…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
We cannot perceive any reason why an attachment will not be sustained, merely because the defendant in the attachment has commeced a suit against his debtor previous to the suing out of the attachment and the summons of his debtor as garnishee. Our statute authorises an attachment to be levied on a debt due the defendant in attachment, and by a garnishment against such debtor, subjects the debt in his hands to the payment of the claim prosecuted in the attachment. It certainly is not the less a debt, because a suit has been commenced upon it, and therefore would seem to be within the very…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Calhoun v. WhittleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Twelves & Co. v. LodanoSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Bingham v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
- Smith v. CarrollSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1891