Bellingham Bay Boom Co. v. Brisbois

• Decision Date: 03 March 1896
• Citation: 14 Wash. 173,44 P. 153
• Parties: BELLINGHAM BAY BOOM CO. v. BRISBOIS ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

44 P. 153

14 Wash. 173

BELLINGHAM BAY BOOM CO. v. BRISBOIS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 3, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Whatcom county; John R. Winn, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by the Bellingham Bay Boom Company against J. B Brisbois and others to determine adverse claims to money in complainant's possession. From a judgment in favor of defendant the Citizens' Bank, defendants Black & Leaming appeal. Reversed.

Newman & Howard, for respondent

Bellingham Bay Boom Co. Kerr & McCord, for respondent Citizens' Bank.

ANDERS J.

There is practically no question as to the facts in this case. They are these: On June 6, 1891, the respondent the Citizens' Bank of Fairhaven recovered a judgment against J. B Brisbois, in the superior court of Whatcom county, for the sum of $1,818.75, together with costs and attorney's fees. Some time during the same year the said Brisbois instituted an action against the Bellingham Bay Boom Company to recover the amount alleged to be due and owing to him on account for money advanced and labor performed for and at the instance of the defendant. In that action the appellants Black & Leaming, were attorneys for Brisbois, and one T. G Newman was attorney for and secretary of the boom company. During the pendency of that case, and on September 1, 1892, Brisbois duly assigned, in writing, the account sued on to Black & Leaming, as collateral security for the payment of $1,000 which he then owed them. Thereafter, and on or about September 12, 1892, the parties to that action, by their attorneys, undertook to settle the matters in controversy between them, but no agreement was consummated at that time. Subsequently, however, and on September 15, 1892, a compromise of the case was effected, in pursuance of which a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, Brisbois, and against the defendant boom company, for $900 and costs. On the same day Brisbois executed an absolute assignment of the judgment to Black & Leaming, in full satisfaction of his indebtedness to them, which assignment was filed with the judgment in the office of the clerk of the court. Prior to the compromise and entry of judgment, and on September 12, 1892, the Citizens' Bank caused an execution to be issued on its judgment against Brisbois, and placed in the hands of the sheriff, who, pursuant thereto, served a notice of garnishment on Mr. Newman, secretary of the boom company. After the rendition and entry of the judgment in the case of Brisbois against the boom company, and the filing of the assignment thereof to appellants, but on the same day, Mr. Newman made a return to the garnishment, stating that the boom company was indebted to Brisbois in the sum of $900. This return was handed to the attorneys of the bank, and was by them delivered to the sheriff; but the sheriff did not then, or at any other time, demand payment of the debt to him. No judgment was entered against the garnishee, nor did it pay the amount of the Brisbois judgment, or any part thereof, to the bank. The sheriff held the execution until November 3, 1892, at which time he returned it, together with the answer to the notice of garnishment, to the clerk of the court. At the time the Brisbois suit was settled, and judgment therein entered and assigned to appellants, the latter were not aware of the fact that the indebtedness of the boom company to Brisbois had been garnished by the bank. Neither was the boom company cognizant of the fact that Brisbois had previously assigned his claim against it to appellants. After appellants were informed of the service of the garnishment on the boom company at the instance of the bank, they, on or about October 17, 1892, notified the boom company, in writing, that they were the owners of its indebtedness to Brisbois, by virtue of an assignment dated September 1, 1892, and that they would hold it for the judgment, in any event, and directed it not to pay the same to the Citizens' Bank. The boom company, finding that the debt due from it to Brisbois was claimed both by the Citizens' Bank and by appellants, and believing that it could not, without risk to itself, determine to which of the claimants it should pay the debt, and disclaiming all interest in the fund, on October 18, 1892, filed its complaint of interpleader, paid the $900 into court, and asked to have the rights of the respective claimants determined, and to be relieved from all costs that might accrue in the action. The defendants, the Citizens' Bank and Black & Leaming, filed their answers and cross complaints, setting forth their respective claims. Upon the facts as above stated, the court made a decree adjudging the bank to be entitled to the money, and discharging the boom company from the judgment against it, whereupon the defendants Black & Leaming appealed.

The right of Brisbois to assign his account and judgment against the boom company, either absolutely, or as security for the payment of his debt, is not denied, or even questioned, by the learned trial court. The judgment seems to have been based solely upon the proposition that, under the law appellants were precluded from asserting their rights against the garnishee, because no notice of the assignment was given to it before the service of the notice of garnishment. There is nothing in the law respecting garnishment or attachment preventing a creditor from assigning, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, any debt which may be due to him; and under our statute the assignee of the debt may maintain an action in his own name against the debtor, even though the assignor may have an interest in the debt assigned. Code Proc. § 145. It is true that the statute provides that debts and credits are subject to attachment and garnishment. Id. §§ 300, 305, 306, 523. But, if the debt sought to be garnished is not at the time in fact due and owing from the garnishee to the attachment or judgment debtor, it necessarily follows that there is nothing upon which the writ can operate, unless it be true, as some courts have held, that an assignment is of no effect, as to third persons, until notice thereof is given to the garnishee. The garnisher can get no better right to the debt garnished than his debtor has, and, if the latter has no right in or to the debt, the former acquires none by his...