¶1(nem. con.) was of opinion that the drafts of the defendant, upon the garnishees, were an equitable assignment of so much of the funds of the debtor, in their hands, and those drafts having exhausted the whole fund, the Court quashed the attachments.
¶2The question submitted to the Court was, whether the F. and M. Bank had a priority, by reason of the drafts of Gorsline, received by the bank, but not notified to the canal company, the drawees, until after the attachments served.