King v. Gorsline
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
GoRSLine owed King, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company owed Gorsline. King issued his attachment, which was served on the canal company on the 20th of August, 1830. The garnishee pleaded nulla bona, and it appeared, in evidence, that before the issuing of the attachment, Gorsline had drawn upon the canal company, in favor of the Farmers and Mechanics Bank, for sundry sums of money advanced to him by them on the faith of those drafts, but the canal company had no…
Read the full summary
GoRSLine owed King, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company owed Gorsline. King issued his attachment, which was served on the canal company on the 20th of August, 1830. The garnishee pleaded nulla bona, and it appeared, in evidence, that before the issuing of the attachment, Gorsline had drawn upon the canal company, in favor of the Farmers and Mechanics Bank, for sundry sums of money advanced to him by them on the faith of those drafts, but the canal company had no notice of them until the day after the service of the attachment. If they were entitled to priority, they exhausted the whole…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
(nem. con.) was of opinion that the drafts of the defendant, upon the garnishees, were an equitable assignment of so much of the funds of the debtor, in their hands, and those drafts having exhausted the whole fund, the Court quashed the attachments.
The question submitted to the Court was, whether the F. and M. Bank had a priority, by reason of the drafts of Gorsline, received by the bank, but not notified to the canal company, the drawees, until after the attachments served.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Martin Pickett's Heirs v. LegerwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
- Current News Features, Inc. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936