Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Mo. 88

Scott v. Hill

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided December 15, 1831

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1831-12-15

<p>1. It is not error to give judgment against a garnishee for more than the amount of the plaintiff’s judgment against the defendant.</p> <p>2. A promissory note made payable to order is such property as can be attached.</p> <p>3. But to entitle the plaintiff to a judgment against the garnishee, in such case, he should first prove that the defendant was still the holder of the note. (Note a.)</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1902

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1831-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Tompkins, J.,

¶1dissenting.

¶2My opinion is, that the plaintiffs proved enough to entitle them to a judgment. The endorsee of Hudson might have come in and interpleaded, (see attachment law,) or in case he had no notice of the attachment, he might have had his action against the plaintiffs for money had and received to his use. It seems to me to be but a reasonable construction oí the statute, that the maker of a promissory note having paid the same under legal compulsion, should be discharged from any liabilities he might have incurred under the law merchant, to the last endorsee or holder by a voluntary payment to the maker or other person who might have had a prior interest in it.

/3/mo/88 · .json · Public domain