The Princeton Mfg. Co. v. White

• Decision Date: 30 September 1881
• Citation: 68 Ga. 96
• Parties: The Princeton Manufacturing Company. vs. White.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

68 Ga. 96

The Princeton Manufacturing Company. vs. White.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

SEPTEMBER TERM, 1881.

Debtor and Creditor. Assignments. Title. Garnishment. Before Judge Erwin. Clarke Superior Court. May Term, 1881.

Reported in the decision.

R. B. Russell, for plaintiff in error.

L. & H. COBB, for defendants.

Crawford, Justice.

Moore, Jenkins & Co., of the state of New York, on the 17th day of September, 1880, made an assignment of all their property, individual and partnership, for the payment of their debts. The assignee, also of the state of New York, accepted the trust. The Princeton Manufacturing Company, of this state, being a creditor, to the end that it might recover its debt, on the 18th day of October, 1880, sued out attachment and served garnishment on James White, who admitted assets in hand to the amount of $500.00, but set out the assignment and notice thereof before service was perfected upon him.

On the answer, counsel for the company moved thecourt for a judgment against the garnishee, which motion was overruled, and the court ordered that the garnishment be dissolved.

This ruling is the error complained of.

1. The single question thus presented by this case is, whether a voluntary assignment, made in New York, of all the individual and partnership property of a firm, carries with it such assets as are in this state at the time of the assignment, to the exclusion of a subsequent attaching creditor.

The property of a non-resident debtor in this state is subject to seizure and sale; if, therefore, the deed of assignment had not passed the right to this fund out of Moore, Jenkins & Co., it was liable to a judgment of that court for the payment of this debt.

Subject to some exceptions, a voluntary assignment in one state, valid by the laws of that state, operates to convey personal property, not under lien, in every state where it may be found. One of the exceptions is, when the assignment is repugnant to the laws of the state where the property is found.

It was contended by counsel for the plaintiff in error, that this assignment was invalid by the laws of New York, and that the provision for the payment of the individual assets to individual creditors only, was contrary to the express law and policy of this state.

On the first point, it is a sufficient reply to say that the un-traversed answer of the garnishee states that the assignment had been made in the state of New York, and that it passed the title to all the property and assets of Moore, Jenkins & Co. to the assignee, and, in verification of his answer, he filed an authenticated copy of said assignment.

On the second point, the only question is whether section 1953 of the Code is limited by sections 1918 and 3154.

By section 1953, it is provided that a debtor may give legal preference to one creditor over another, so that hemakes no reservation for his own benefit, or other favored creditors.

By section 1918 it is declared that where one of the partners of an insolvent partnership dies, who is himself insolvent, the creditors of the partnership cannot claim to share the individual assets of the deceased partner until the individual creditors have received an equal per cent-age from the individual assets that the partnership creditors have received from the partnership assets.

Section 3154 provides, that when joint assets are exhausted, joint debts may come on individual assets, but individual debts must first be advanced the prorata amount received on the joint debts.

We cannot appreciate the force of this objection, for, as we view it, these...