Brown v. Collins
| Decision Date | 30 March 1893 |
| Citation | 27 A. 329,18 R.I. 242 |
| Parties | BROWN v. COLLINS. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions to court of common pleas, Providence county.
Action by Lucius D. Brown against Christopher Collins. Judgment for plaintiff, and from judgment on garnishee process against the town of Westerly, defendant excepts. Judgment vacated.
Albert B. Crafts, for plaintiff.
Charles Perrin, for defendant and garnishee.
This is an action of assumpsit originally brought in the district court of the third judicial district, and taken by appeal from that court to the court of common pleas, in which judgment was rendered at the November term, 1801, for the plaintiff for his damages and costs. Service of the writ had been made on the town of Westerly, for the purpose of attaching the personal estate of the defendant in its possession as the debtor of the defendant. The court of common pleas, on the plaintiff's motion, charged the garnishee in the sum of $66.66. The case is before us on exception to the ruling charging the garnishee.
It appeared from the disclosure of the garnishee by its treasurer, and the testimony of its overseer of the poor, that the latter made a contract in behalf of the town of Westerly with the defendant and his wife to take charge during the year 1889 of the town's farm, its almshouse, and the inmates of the almshouse, for which services they should receive the sum of $400. The contract provided for no apportionment of this sum between the defendant and his wife, and specified no time of payment. Payments were in fact made quarterly to the defendant; the last on July 1, 1889, about two months prior to the service of the writ on the garnishee. For some of the payments the overseer of the poor took the joint receipts of the defendant and his wife. We think the court below erred in its ruling charging the garnishee. The contract between the garnishee and the defendant and his wife was joint contract on the part of the defendant and his wife, on which no suit could have been maintained by the defendant alone. Hopkins v. Angell, 13 R. I. 670. It is a well-established rule governing the right of attachment by trustee process that the plaintiff can have no greater right against the garnishee than the defendant, or principal debtor, would have, and can be in no better position as to the garnishee than the principal debtor would be if himself suing the garnishee. Waldron v. Wilcox, Id. 518, 520; Carpenter v. Gay, 12 R. I. 306, 307; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...cannot be placed in a better position than the principal defendant is recognized in Waldron v. Wilcox, 13 R. I. 518, 520; Brown v. Collins, 18 R. I. 242, 27 Atl. 329; Smith v. Millet, 11 R. I. 528. It is difficult to see upon what principle the plaintiff can be allowed, by his attachment, t......
-
Battjes Fuel & Bldg. Material Co. v. Milanowski
...we perceive no reason why the same rule should not apply to an indebtedness owing by the garnishee to husband and wife.' In Brown v. Collins, 18 R. I. 242, 27 A. 329, the debtor and his wife hired out to a town to take charge of an almshouse and were to receive $400. It was sought by garnis......
-
H. A. Grimwood Co. v. Capitol Hill Bldg. & Const. Co.
...no better position with respect to the garnishee than the defendant could in a suit brought by him against the garnishee. Brown v. Collins, 18 R. I. 242, 27 Atl. 329; Waldron v. Wilcox, 13 R. I. 518; Carpenter v. Gay, 12 R. I. 306; Smith v. Millett, 11 R. I. 528. In the case at bar no facts......
-
Johnson v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...cannot be placed in a better position than the principal defendant, is recognized in Waldron v. Wilcox, 13 R.I. 518, 520; Brown v. Collins, 18 R.I. 242, 27 A. 329; v. Millett, 11 R.I. 528. It is difficult to see upon what principle the plaintiff can be allowed, by his attachment, to destroy......