Case ID: va_46/html/0177-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lewisburg.
    Caperton v. M’Corkle & Adams.
    (Absent Brooke, J.)
    Two attachments against an absconding debtor are levied on the same property. The first levied is quashed by the County Court, but upon appeal, this judgment is reversed. Pending the appeal an order is made in the second attachment case for a sale of the property, and it is sold and the proceeds are paid over to the creditor in the second attachment. An action for money had and received, will lie, by the first attaching creditor, against the creditor in the second attachment, for the proceeds of the sale.
    This was an action of assvmpsit, brought in the Circuit Court of Monroe by M’Corkle fy Adams against 
      Caperton, to recover the proceeds of certain attached effects of James M. Coalter, an absconding debtor. Both of the parties had sued out attachments against the effects of Coalter as an absconding debtor, which were returnable to the May term of the County Court of Monroe. The attachments were levied on the same property and served on the same garnishees ; but that of M’Corkle Sp Adams was first issued and first served.
    On the return of the attachment of M’Corkle Sp Adams, the County Court, on the motion of the defendant, quashed it; and they obtained an appeal to the Circuit Court, where the judgment of the County Court was reversed.
    In the mean time, Caperton had obtained a judgment, and an order for the sale of the attached effects in his case; and the sheriff had sold the property and paid over the proceeds of sale to him. When, therefore, the case of M’Corkle Sp Adams came back to the County Court, and an order for the sale of the attached effects was made, the officer made a return that they had been already sold, and the proceeds paid over to Caperton. M’Corkle Sp Adams thereupon brought this action against Caperton.
    
    The first count in the declaration was for money had and received. The second set out the facts; and the hill of particulars stated the nature of the claim and the facts on which it was founded. Caperton demurred to both counts of the declaration, but the Court overruled the demurrer. He then pleaded non assumpsit, and on the trial, there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs : Whereupon Caperton applied to this Court for a supersedeas, which was granted.
    
      The Attorney General, for the appellant.
    
      N. Harrison, for the appellees.
   By the Court.

The judgment is affirmed.