
    Hillsborough,
    Oct. 4, 1901.
    Glauber Manufacturing Co. v. Voter & Tr., Cutter, Claimant.
    An order for the payment of money, made and accepted in good faith, is valid as against a subsequent attachment of the funds in the hands of the acceptor by a creditor of the assignor. -
    Foreign Attachment. Issue between tbe plaintiffs and tbe claimant. Trial by the court, and case transferred from tbe May term, 1901, of tbe superior court by Peaslee, J.
    The writ was served upon tbe trustee, February 26, 1898. A verdict was found against the defendant in March, 1900. Tbe trustee’s disclosure showing that be owed tbe defendant was filed in October, 1899. After the rendition of tbe verdict tbe claimant moved for and was granted leave to appear as claimant of the funds in tbe bands of tbe trustee. Up to this time tbe plaintiffs had no information of tbe claim so set up.
    At the trial of tbe issue between tbe plaintiffs and tbe claimant, it appeared that in July, 1897, tbe claimant had a claim against tbe defendant which be tried to collect, and that thereupon tbe defendant gave him an order on tbe trustee as follows: “ Nashua, N. H., July 19, ’97. Mr. F. D. Cook. Please pay to H. A. Cutter when due tbe am’t of last payment on plumbing contract, Cortland st. job, am’t being sixty-six and 25-100 dollars ($66.25). C. A. Voter & Co. V.” Across tbe face is written: “Accepted. F. D. Cook, July 19, 1897.” Subsequently tbe claimant brought suit in Voter’s name against Cook to recover tbe claim represented by tbe order, and recovered judgment in June, 1898. In that suit tbe claimant’s name was indorsed on tbe writ as plaintiff in interest.
    Tbe court discharged tbe trustee, and tbe plaintiffs excepted.
    
      Wason & Moran, for tbe plaintiffs.
    
      Henry A. Cutter, for the elaimantv
   Blodgett, C. J.

No fraud appearing as to tbe defendant’s order to tbe claimant and its acceptance by tbe trustee, by their subsequent attachment of tbe credits alleged to be due tbe defendant from tbe trustee the plaintiffs acquired a lien only upon tbe defendant’s then existing interest in those credits, and can bold only what tbe defendant himself could recover if the present suit were brought by him. Upon familiar principles, this would be nothing. For recent decisions directly in point, see Marsh v. Garney, 69 N. H. 236, 237, and Pollard v. Pollard, 68 N. H. 356, 357. See, also, Corning v. Records, 69 N. H. 390, 396, 397.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.  