The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1883-04-03
HEAD-NOTES OF DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
January Term. A. ID. 1883.

John II. Brown ct al, Appellants, VS.. Mary
Marzyck, Appellee-Appeal from decree Of
the Circuit Court for Duval county.
RANDALL, G. j.:
/. 4 masters deed executed to purchaser un-
der decree of foreclosure which decree directed
the sale of the mortgaged property, and that tie
master on such sale execute and deliver to the
purchaser deed of conveyance, and that the
purchaser be let into possession under such deed,
is evidence OF title without showing cOnfirma-
ton of the sale.
= writ of assistance may be granted TO put
out of possession of land sold and conveyed un-
der decree of foreclosure. person not party
to the suit who has come into possession since
the commencement of the foreN1Hnre suit with
the consent and cOnnivance ofOsAe mOrtgagor,
although he claims possession under tax title
it appearing also that such claim is made not in
good faith but by collusion with the mortgagOr
for the purporse OF keeping the purchaser under
the foreclosure sale ont OF possession.
Decree affirmed.
Geo Wheaton Deans, for Appellants NJ. &.
Jordan and F. F. l. Enge, for Appellee.
Jno $ Sammis, Appellant, VS.. l. Engle and Hart
ridge, Sanderson's Administrators, ct al, Re-
spondents-Duval county.
WEsTcoTT, j..
l. An attorney having money collected for
client in his hands, which money is claimed by
Two creditors Oh SuCu CIeDI, MS cllent QlScI31m-
ing any interest in favor of himself the attorney
not being iuliy cogniZant Of the facts as to de-
termine the right, may properly bring bill seek
ing decree against the creditors that they inter-
plead and contest their respective claims between
themselves.
2. The practice upon answer and replication
in an interpleading suit properly brought is 10
decree the bill to be properly filed to dismiss the
complainant with his costs up to that time upon
his placing the fund in the registry OF the court
and 10 direct an action to be brought or an issue
or a reference to ascertain and settle the rights
of the defendant claimants to the fund as the
case may require. In this case there was ref
erence which was proper.
3. A cross bill setting up substantially the
same facts as the answer is inadmissbe in an in
terpleader suit where the defendant can have all
the affirmative relief he is entitled to without 1t
under the decree of reference to ascertain his
right
4. A debtor places chose in action in the
hands of his attorney, to whom he is indebted,
with directions, not in writing, to collect and ap-
ply the proceeds, so far necessary, to the pay
ment of his debt. This is particular assign
ment good in equity, and the assignee has an eq-
uitable right to enforce the debt at law in the
name of the assignor. Such assignment places
the chose in action beyond the control of the as
signor, and is good against a subsequent assign
ment by him, or subsequent attaching creditor.
8. In a contest between an administrator and
an alleged creditor Of his intestate, the creditor
is not under the statutes of this State q compe-
tent witness in regard to any transaction or CON-
munication between him and the deceased unless
such administrator is examined to such transac-
ton in his own behalf or testimony of such de.
ceased person as to 1t is given In evidence
6. Unless the case presented by the record is
one in which there is plaia and adequate rem
edy at law, or some jurisdictional defect, or ex-
treme mu1ifariousness Is disclosed il is the prac-
tice OF this court where the decree Is otherwise
proper to disregard objections of q technical
character made here for the first time. Hence, q
defendant 10 a bill of interpleader after unsuc-
cessfuly contesting the claim Of co-detendant
and after decree to interplead between them
selves not objected to, win not be permitted 10
object here tor the first time that the bill is
brought by such co-defendent In the capacity Of
surviving partner OF firm against himself and
another as administrators OF the estate OF his
deceased partner
Decree affirmed
c. p. and j. G. Cooper, for Appellant; John
E. Hartridge and W. B. Young, for Appeliees.
r. B. Post and A. M. Hobby Va E. G. Love, as
Executor Of the last win and testament Of
Mary A. Gilchrist, deceased, garnishee-Ap-
peal from Gadsden county.
RANDALL, C. j.:
1. A writ Of garnishment win not lie against
an executor during The progress OF the adminis-
tration Of an estate TO reach . legacy bcqueafhed
10 debtor.
.. Whether srch gaFnishment may be sns-
tained atter an accounting 70 the Probate once,
and N order made directing payment Of the
legacy, quersf
Judgnent affirmed.
= ~ Malone. for Appellants; Geo. 2. Raney,
Sor Appelica
Jonah Woedbersy. Exec,for of &C Of a. w.
Hineop. dec1n61d Appellant ~ John z.