Andrews v. Union Bank of Tennessee
Supreme Court of Alabama
ERROR to tbe Circuit Court of Limestone. Tried before tbe Hon. Samuel Chapman. Tbe Union Bank of Tennessee obtained a judgment, in the Circuit Court of Limestone, against Nathaniel Hancock and Donald Campbell, on which process of garnishment issued, and the plaintiff in error was summoned as garnishee.
Read the full summary
ERROR to tbe Circuit Court of Limestone. Tried before tbe Hon. Samuel Chapman. Tbe Union Bank of Tennessee obtained a judgment, in the Circuit Court of Limestone, against Nathaniel Hancock and Donald Campbell, on which process of garnishment issued, and the plaintiff in error was summoned as garnishee. He appeared, and answered, that, being indebted to said Hancock individually, and to Hancock & Campbell as partners, he made certain bills of exchange, payable at a future day to Clay Stinnett, which said Hancock received in discharge of said indebtedness; and that he had received no notice of…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
— It is clear that the court erred in rendering judgment against the garnishee, as the answer shows that the legal interest in the debt was not in either of the defendants. The bills of exchange, which constituted the only debt admitted by the answer, were payable to Olay Stinnett; and he should have been brought before the court, before a judgment could properly be rendered, as the effect *577of making tbe bills payable to a third person was, to vest the legal title to the debt in him. Covington v. Kelly, 6 Ala., 860; Goodwin v. Brooks, ib., 836; Moore v. Jones, 13 Ala., 296. Although not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moore v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Covington v. KellySupreme Court of Alabama · 1844