
    Wilson v. Davisson.
    Argued, Wednesday, October 16th, 1816.
    i. Bonds — Assignment-'—Liability of Obligor. — In Debt by '.die assignee of a bond. It is not a suiiicient plea, that, before notice of the assignment, the effects of the assignor were attached in the defendant's liands, and a decree entered that he should pay the debt to the attaching creditor, &c.; arid that, accordingly, he had made such payment; — it appearing by the pleadings, that the bond was assigned before the attachment was instituted, and suit brought upon it by the as-signee before the payment made.
    
    Daniel D. Davisson assignee of Isaac Davisson, brought suit on a bond against Benjamin Wilson, jr., who pleaded that, before notice of the assignment, the effects of the assignor were attached in his, the defendant’s hands, and a decree entered that he should pay the debt to the attaching creditor, on bond and security being given in the usual form; — 'and that, bond and security being afterwards given, he had paid the debt to the attaching creditor. To this plea the plaintiff demurred. The defendant also pleaded payment; and issue was joined on both pleas.
    The case made by the declaration, first plea and demurrer, was, that the bond given by Wilson was dated December 24lh, 1807, payable four j'ears after date, and assigned to Daniel D. Davisson, on the 21st of February, 1808. The suit in Chancery, to attach the debt in the hands of Wilson, was instituted on the 22d of November, 1809, against Isaac Davisson and others; on which day it was decreed that Wilson should pay the amount of the note to the plaintiff in equity, when due, upon his giving security to return the amount to such persons as the Court should thereafter direct. At that time there was no notice of the assignment. Bond and security according to the decree was given on the 3d of May, 1813, after this suit had
    been brought; and, on the same day, Wilson paid the amount of the bond to the attaching creditor.
    Upon the Demurrer, the Superior Court of law gave judgment for the plaintiff, without any trial of the plea of payment; whereupon, the defendant appealed.
    Wickham for the Appellant,
    contended, 1st, that the decree in favour of the attaching creditor having been entered before notice of the assignment, the garnishee was bound to perform that decree: and the remedy of the ■ assignee, if any, was against the attaching creditor, on his bond to refund: and 2dly that no final judgment ought to have- been given against the defendant, until the issue on üíe plea of payment had been tried.
    Nicholas for the Appellee
    insisted, 1st, that the bond having been assigned before the suit was brought to attach the debt, it was not a debt due to Isaac Davisson; and therefore that the law on the demurrer was for the plaintiff; — 2dly, that the- Decree under which the Appellant made the payment, was interlocutory only, and might have been set aside, on the circumstances of the case.
    Wickham in reply.
    It was determined by the Decree, that it was a debt belonging to Isaac Davisson, and, as such, was directed to be paid to his creditor. Every decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction is presumed to be right until the contrary appears. An attachment regularly laid, and regularlj' discharged, is certainly a. satisfaction of the debt. The seven years reserved, are for the benefit of the absent defendant. The garnishee is bound to pay upon the Court’s order.
    The case is analogous to that of an Executor’s pleading former judgments; which plea, if demurred to, is a bar; the only way to controvert it being to reply that such judgments were obtained by fraud or connivance.
    
      
       Bonds — Assignment,—See generally, monographic note on “Bonds” appended to Ward v. Churn, 18 Gratt. 801; monographic note on “Assignments” appended to Ragsdale v. Hagy, 9 Gratt. 409.
      Pleading and Practice — Judgment without Determining a Material Issue. — Effect.—In Morgantown Bank v. Foster, 35 W. Va. 363, 13 S. E. Rep. 997, issue was joined on a plea ol nonassumpsit. The defendant then died two special ideas, to which the plaintiff demurred. The lower court overruled the demurrer and gave final judgment for the defendant. The court of appeals held that this was error, as there should have been no final judgment without the issue on the plea of nonassumpsit having been tried, withdrawn, or otherwise disposed of. The court, citing the principal case as authority, said: "If. was error to give linal judgment against the plaintiff with the issue on the plea of nonassump-sit left standing and undetermined. There could properly bono final judgment until the issue joined upon the plea of nonassumpsit was tried.”
      The principal case is also cited in Hope v. Smith, 10 Gratt. 223; Haseltine v. Brickey, 16 Gratt. 119.
    
    
      
       Note. In Wakefield v. Martin, 3 Mass. T. Rep. 558, it was decided that even before notice of the assignment, an equitable interest is vested in the assignee, so that the debt can not be attached, as the property of the assignor. See 1 Bac. Abr. (Wilson’s Edition) p. 249. — Note in Original Edition.
    
   Monday, October 21st, 1816,

JUDGE BROOKE

pronounced the Court’s opinion that the Superior Court was correct in sustaining the demurrer of the plaintiff to the plea of the defendant, *but erred in entering the Judgment before a trial of the plea of payment.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a trial to be had therein of the plea of payment.  