Wybrants v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 31 December 1848 |
| Citation | 3 Tex. 458 |
| Parties | SAMUEL W. WYBRANTS v. RICE & NICHOLS |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error from Montgomery County.
The amount due on a negotiable note, supposed to have been negotiated and passed out of the hands of the payee, cannot be attached in the hands of the maker.
Case stated in the opinion of the court.
WILEY & MAXCEY for plaintiff in error.
WEBB for defendants.
The plaintiff in error was summoned as garnishee in the suit of Rice & Nichols against R. M. Hannay. In his answer he “stated that on the 7th day of June, 1846, he purchased of the said Hannay an amount of that estate, with the stock of merchandise in the store at Huntsville, Walker county, Texas; also all debts due said Hannay for merchandise sold at his mercantile establishment in said Huntsville; the consideration for which was paid to said Hannay in New Orleans, at the time of the purchase by said Wybrants, except three hundred and eighty dollars; for which said Wybrants executed a promissory note, payable to Hannay or bearer, six months after date, being the tenth of June, eighteen hundred and forty-six; which said note, he has reason to believe, was negotiated long previous to service of this attachment or garnishment; as to who is the present holder or owner of said note, or who was at the above specified time, he does not know.” On this answer, the district court gave judgment against him in favor of the plaintiffs in the attachment. In the rendition of this judgment the garnishee supposes the court to have erred, and asks its reversal.
The question is, can the amount due on a negotiable note, supposed to have been negotiated and passed out of the hands of the payee, be attached in the hands of the maker? We believe that this proposition must be answered in the negative, both on principle and authority. When the note has been negotiated, the maker does not owe the original payee. In fact, it is not easy for him to know to whom, or to what individual, he is indebted. He is owing whoever may be the owner or holder of his note, and cannot know who, until it is presented for payment. If it were otherwise, it would entirely destroy the negotiability of the paper, least the proceeds of the note should be condemned to the payment of a debt of the original payee.
In the case of Gaffrey vs. Brown [2 Bailey's R. 441] the rule is explicitly acknowledged, that the maker of negotiable notes cannot be made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iglehart v. Moore
...and on principle he cannot be charged as the debtor of the payee, or any intermediate holder before the note falls due. Wybrant v. Rice & Nichols, 3 Tex. 458. In this case, the garnishee was apprised of the transfer of the note before the service of the garnishment; but his defense, on the ......
-
Waples-Painter Co. v. Ross
...as being decisive of the matter does not support it, however, in that the garnishment judgment had been appealed from. See Wybrants v. Rice & Nicholls, 3 Tex. 458. However that may be, Westmoreland-Miller appears never to have been overruled, and does decide the question now before us, and ......
-
Bassett v. Garthwaite, Griffin & Co.
...a negotiable note, cannot be charged as the garnishee of the payee, so long as the note is still current as negotiable paper. Wybrants v. Rice & Nichols, 3 Tex. 458; and the case of Inglehart v. Moore, decided at Tyler term (April), 1858. This subject is discussed by Mr. Sayles, in his late......
-
Price v. Brady
...that he did not know who was the owner of the note, as he had not seen it or heard from it since it was executed. In Wybrants v. Rice & Nichols, 3 Tex. 458, it was held that the maker of a negotiable note was not liable in garnishment, but by the answer in that case the garnishee expressed ......