CHESAPEAKE GUANO 00. V. SPARKS.
As to the first note, of $19,000, it is shown that the plaintiff had telegraphed his bankers or agents on the seventeenth of December, 1879, to pay the deceased $50. The note shows that an indorsement of that amO'.mt was made on 'the 6th; a few days later, a letter was written giving notice of the telegraphic remittance. The question for you to decide, as regards thili note, is whether the language of the letter authorized the holder of the note to make this indorsement upon this particular note. If you find that said letter was intended to authorize the making of the indorsement npon this identical note, the time of the receipt of the money being immaterial, you will find for the plaintiff upon that note. Upon the second note, of $11,000, if you find any authority conto make the same, or veyed to the party making the any recognition or acknowledgment of the note in writing by the defendant as a subsisting liability, you will find for the plaintiff on that note. If you find for the plaintiff on either note, or both, you will compute the interest thereupon, and find in the aggregate of the amounts so found.
CHESAPEAKE GUANO Co. v. SPARKS, Defendant, and another" Garnishee.!
lOi1'Cuit Court, 8. D. Georgia, W. D. October 28,1883.)
GARNISHMENT Oil' COLLATERAL SECURITIES.
Where it appears from the answer of a garnishee that he has in hands cer.tain negotiable securities, trausferred to him by the defendant as collateral se· curity for a debt before service of the garnishment, and that the securities exceed in amount the debt for which tIley are collo.ter/ll, the garnishee is not entitled to an order discharging him absolutely, but he should be directed to hold whatever surplus may remain in his hands after paying his debt, subject to the futher order of the court during the pendency of the cause.
The Central Georgia Bank was served with summons of garnishment in this case at the instance of the plaintiff. The bank an· swered that it was not indehted to defendant, and had rio effects of the defendant in its hands except certain negotiable notes of third persons, amounting to $2,000, which had been deposited by the defenda:1t with it as collateral security for a loan of $1,500. The bank asked to be discharged as garnishee. T. B. Gresham, for mova.nt. Hill &; Harris, contra. Before Hon. JAMES W. LOCKE, D. J., presiding by designation. LOCKE, d., \or.ally.) The a.pplication for discharge is based upon section 3551 of the Code of Georgia, 1882, whioh is as follows: "Col·
Reported by W. B. Hill, Esq., of the Macon bar.
lateral soourities in the hands of a creditor shall not be the subject of gamishment at the instance of other creditors." It is contended that this provision establishes an entire exemption from garnishment in respect to collateral securities held by a, garnishee. It is undoubtedly true that the process of gamishmenJ; cannot in any way embarrass the creditor holding them, 80 as to interfere with his title, or impede him in any way from realizing on them. But, subject to this paramount right of the creditor, the residue or in. his hands after payment of the debt, belongs to the debtor, the defendant in the action, and may be reached by garnishment. of the Code must be construed, with .those The tions which are recognized as limiting the common-law principle, of which the'section itself is simply a codification. By the common law the surplus was subject to garnishment. Drake, Attachm. § 539. The section' of the Code is itself taken from the decision of the supreme (l()urt of Georgia. in the case of Hall v. Page, 4 Ga. 429, in which case the facts were that the debt was $527, and the collateral transferred was a note for $135. The head-note of the case is in the exact Ip,nguage of the section quoted, and it is not to be presumed that the court intended to lay down a rule broader than warranted by the facts before it, that other creditors could not by gamishment reach a collateral less than the debt, nor until the debt was paid; and in the codification adopting that it can be presumed that the legislature intended to make the rule broader than it was when thus adopted. Any other construction would enable a debtor when sued to put all his chases in a.ctian beyond the reach of his creditors by transferring them in large' amounts as collateral for insignificant sums, which he might borrow fo!; that purpose. The motion must be denied, and an order will be passed directing the gamishee to retain whatever surplUS may remain in his hands after satisfying the debt due it, subject to the further order of the court.
WOODWORTH V. ST. PAUL,
M. & M. By. Co.
October 10, 1883.,
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Minnesota.
PERSONAL INJUHY -NEGLIGENCE- CONTRffiUTORY RAILROAD COMPANIES '1'0 EMPLOYES.
Railroad companies are not insurers of the life and limb of their employes, and the duty and ohligation which the law exacts from a railroad company towards its e'mployes is not as high as that towards its passengers. Ordinary care is the rule which, is applied to a railroad company with regard to its duties towards its employes. Under this rule is the obligation to keep its machinery and all other thi'ngB used in the operation of the foadin proper order and repair, so that its employes will not be injured uy reason of any defects in such machinery or \vorking apparatus.