
    THOMAS A. BROWN v. FRANK H. FINLEY AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
    At Law. —
    No. 15,618.
    The District of Columbia is not subject to garnishment or attachment, on general principles of public policy, in respect of money due its contractors and officers. „
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND DECISION.
    The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant Finley for $10,000. It is alleged that the District of Columbia is indebted to Finley in an amount larger than that of the judgment. This indebtedness was attached in the hands of the District by Brown under his judgment. The Commissioners of the District being, served with the usual interrogatories, answered them, claiming that, on grounds of public policy, the District is, by law, exempt from process of attachment or garnishment. They also submitted a lengthy statement regarding the origin of the alleged indebtedness, and that the same was to be paid in bonds, not in money, and that any further issue of bonds is prohibited by legislation of Congress, and they claim that no judgment of condemnation should be made against the District. It is deemed unnecessary to set forth the return at length, as the court are of opinion that on general principles of public policy the District of Columbia is not subject to garnishment or attachment in respect of money due its contractors or officers.
    
      
      Reginald Fendall, with whom was Walter Davidge, for plaintiff.
    
      William Birney, for the District of Columbia, garnishee.
    (See Deer et al. v. Lubey and District of Columbia, garnishee, 1 MacA., 187.)
   Wylie, J.,

in addition to this.principle, was of opinion that the answer of the Commissioners was a full defense to the attachment, and that there should for that reason be no judgment of condemnation against the District.

Cartter, Ch. J., dissented.  