Skip to main content
· 1/15/1844

Burrill v. Letson

Citations

  • 29 S.C.L. 378

Syllabus

<p>1. Where a suit was brought in the court of Common Pleas, upon a mere claim for damages, as for supposed extra work, and during its pendency, copies of a writ in foreign attachment were served both upon the defendant and upon the plaintiff’s attornies, at the instance of a creditor of the plaintiff — it was held that the pending suit was not the subject of attachment.</p> <p>2. In an action of covenant brought in the circuit court of the United States, the plaintiffs obtained a verdict, and entered up judgment for the amount of the recovery. Afterwards a writ in foreign attachment was sued out against the plaintiff, copies of which were served on his attorneys, and the defendant. Held that the attachment as to the recovery could not be supported.</p> <p>3. The words “monies and debts,” used in the Attachment Act, are to be construed to mean debts due by bonds, notes and book account; and to make them liable, they must themselves be attached, so that they can be delivered to the plaintiff The mere service of the debtor would not be an attachment of the security, and hence, not of the debt.</p> <p>4. In this State, the practice of attaching whenever a sum certain is due by the garnishee to the absent debtor, not evidenced by bond or note, by summoning the debtor, is too inveterate to be now shaken, and as it has the sanction of the custom of London, it ought not to be interfered with; hut the words of our Act are not to he construed to mean more than that custom.</p> <p>5. The recovery in the United States Court, if the attachment were sustained, would lead to a conflict of jurisdiction, which is always to be avoided.</p> <p>6. The rule of our court shews that where the fund is in another court, an attachment will not lie. Vide Young vs. Young, 2 Hill Rep. 426.</p> <p>7. The only case where an attachment may have effect after suit, is where the evidence of the debts, as bonds, notes, or books of account, may be seized, and their seizure would operate as a transfer

Judges: Butter, Frost, Neall, Rvaits, Wardeaw

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.