
    Tertius Wadsworth, vs. Giles Griswold.
    
      Defendant having lodged two notes of hand with an attorney for collection, by a separate writing, assigns them with other cho-ces, inpayment of a debt, and transfers the attorney’s receipt for the notes, with an order written thereon, to pay the proceeds when collected, to the assignee. The plaintiff’s attachment being afterwards issued and served on the attorney, as guarni-shee, it was held that the assignment ivas valid, and the monies collected not liable to the attachment.
    
    The defendant, Griswold, in the month of February, 1820, placed in the hands of John M. Felder, Esq. attorney at law, for collection, two notes of hand, drawn by William Wes% in favor of said Griswold. Before anyjudgihent had against West, or the monies collected, Griswold being indebted in a large amount, as is alledgcd, to one William H. Imlay, transferred by his attornies, A. Slaughter and C. Labuzan, a right to certain choses in action due him, in part satisfaction of his debt; á list whereof was made out, the notes of West being included. On the back of this list, was the following memorandum, in the hand' writing of Griswold: “ I have examined the within schedule of notes receipted for to William H. Imlay, by A. Slaughter and C. Labxxzan, and which said notes they, as my attornies, assigned to the said Wm. H. Imlay; and which said act of my attornies, Í hereby ratify and confirm:” signed, “ Giles Griswold.” On the back of the receipt also, given by Mr. F eldexy fit the time the notes in question were lodged with him for collection, is the following endorsement: “ Pay over to William H. Imlay or order, the proceeds of the within claims; for value received, 14th April, 1821. Giles Grisioold, for
    
      A. Slaughter and C. Labuzan, attornies.”
    Wadsworth, the plaintiff, obtained a writ of attachment, Which was lodged 28th October, 1822; a copy whereof was ■served on John M. Felder, the same day; to which he returned that the money was collected and ready to be paid over as the court should direct.
    Whether under all these circumstances, the monies collected from West, and in the hands of'Mr. Felder, were subject to the plaintiff’s attachment, was the question. The presiding Judge did not think that the assignment and transfer to Imlay precluded Wadsworth from a recovery. The jury found accordingly, and the money was ordered to be paid over to the plaintiff.
    An appeal from this decision was taken:
    •. .;Tst. Because there was such aix assignment and transfer of the money collected from West, to Imlay, as to prevent its liability to Griswold’s attachment.
    2d. Because there was no property on which the attachment could operate.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gantt. .

Long before the attachment in this case was served xxpon the garnishee, (but at what particular time docs not appear) Gris* wold, by his authorized attornies (A. Slaughter and C.'Labu-zan) amongst other choses in action, transfered .to Imlay the notes in question.

Imlay being a creditoiyto a large amount, the transfer thus made was based upon a full and adequate consideration. In reference to this transaction and in confirmation of .it, (if indeed any confirmation was necessary) was the order of Griswold himself, on the 14th April 1821, upon the back of Mr. F elder’s receipt for the notes in question, directing that the proceeds of West’s potes should be paid over to Imlay.

It is impossible to conceive therefore a more fall and absolute relinquishment of right in one man and investiture in another, than what took place in this instance. Not the slightest imputation of fraud attaches to the transaction, by which its efficacy might be impaired; but on the contrary, the transfer appears to have been bona fide, and in part payment of a very ,, large amount due from Griswold to Imlay. After the right of Griswold to those notes had been thus disposed of, Wadsworth, the plaintiff, on the 28th October, 1822, .(eighteen months at least after Imlay’s right to the proceeds of "West’s notes had been secured to him) took out his attachment. The attachment act can alone operate, by the express terms of it, upon the monies, goods, chatties, &c. of the absent debtor. If therefore the money in the hands of the attorney, did not belong to Griswold, the debt- or, but to Imlay, then there was nothing on which it could operate..

The plaintiff, although a creditor, was entitled to no preference over Imlay; and the effect of the proceedings under this attachment (were they to he allowed) would be to divest a right fairly and legally established in Imlay, and to appropriate a. sum of money belonging to him, to the payment of a debt due by Griswold.

This would be as unjust as it is illegal. The order therefore, which was made for the .payment of the money in die hands of the guarnishee to the plaintiff in attachment, is set aside, as also the verdict which was given in the case; -the property attached not having been liable to the plaintiff’s attachment.

Richardson, Huger, Johnson and Colcoclc

Justices, concurred.  