McNeill v. Roache

Citations

• 49 Miss. 436

Syllabus

<p>1. Chancekx Pbactice — Attachment and Gabnishment. — R. as creditor of M., deceased, instituted suit by bill in equity against M., as a non-resident, by attachment of the debt due by S. B. alleges that the estate of M. is indebted to him in the sum of $2,500.00, That P. is administrator, and that the estate is insolvent, and tha t he took and converted an obligation of M. & H. to his own use, for $5,000.00. Prays an attachment against the effects 6f M., and garnishment of S., his debtor. The allegations of the bill are denied by the answer. Reid: That to authorize this proceeding under the statute, the debtor of complainant’s creditor must be a nonresident of this State, and have either lands and tenements within the same, or some other porson within the State who is indebted to him, or has effects of his in his hands. Bev. Code 1857, p. 5i9, art 60 ; Trotter v. White, 10 S. & M., 607 ; Freeman v. Malcolm, 11 S. & M., 53; Freeman v. Guión, 11 S. & M., 58,</p> <p>2. Same-Case in Judgment. — 1The answer of the garnishee states that he gave to M. three notes, amounting to $20,000.00, and does not know whether M. has negotiated the notes, or any of them ; but if he has so transferred them, he owes them to the holder, and not to M. He should not he charged, because it does not appear affirmatively that he was, when garnisheed,.indebted to the defendant., unless that fact so appear, it is insufficient, and no judgment should be rendered against him.</p>