Case Name: Steuart vs. West, Garnishee of Jenners
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1804-10
Citations: 1 H. & J. 536
Docket Number: 
Parties: Steuart vs. West, Garnishee of Jenners.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 1
Pages: 536–538

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1804.
Steuart vs. West, Garnishee of Jenners.
■Where the garnishee is indebted to the defendant by a ■promissory nóte, and an at-tachmentislaid in his hands before such note is passed away by the defendant, whether 5t be before or after it is due, it is a ben on the amount of the note
Aiteax, from Princc-George’s county court. The appellant, on the 14th of June 1800, issued out of the said court, on a judgment rendered there, in which he was plaintiff, and the said Jenners defendant, a writ of attachment, which was on the 15th of June 1800, laid in the hands of Stephen West, the present appellee, as garnishee, who appeared and pleaded nulla bona, to which the general replication was entered and issue joined. At the trial of the issue the defendant produced and read in evidence the following promissory note and indorsements, viz„ • •
<“g100 ■ • April 14, 1800.
Sixty days after date, I promise to pay Mr. Abiel Jenners, or order, one hundred dollars, negotiable at the Bank of Columbia, for value received.
Stephen West.
For value received I do hereby assign over a!) my right, title and interest, to the within note, to Col. Solomon Simpson, this 18th of April 1800.
Miel Jenners.
Mr. West, Sir, Please to pay the within to the bearer.
Solomon Simpson.”
The defendant proved the signature to the said in-dorsement to be the hand writing of the said Jenners.
The plaintiff then, in support of the issue on his part, produced a witness, who swore that the above note was passed by'Miel Jenners to him the deponent as the owner thereof, whether before or after it became due he does not recollect; but if before it became due, it was but a few days'; that it was after it became due that lie presented it' to West, the defendant, for payment; that be held said note from live to ten days be/ore he presented it to West.
The plaintiff then prayed the court to direct tho jury, that if they were of opinion, from the evidence offered, that the above mentioned promissory note was in the hands of the said Miel Jenners, as the owner thereof, at or after the iitne when the attachment in this cause was laid in the hands of West, the garnishee, that then Ihe attachment was a lien, and hound whatever money was due on the note from West, in the hands of West. But the County Court, [Gantt, Ch. J. and Cantee, A. J.] were divided in opinion, and the direction as prayed was not given, wherefore the plaintiff excepted; and verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed to this court.
Mor&ell, for Appellant.
Duckett, for Appellee.
Cases cited—Welsh vs. Elliott, and the cases there cited, viz. 1 Salk. 291, 280. Skin. 639. 1 Ld. Ray* 727.

Opinion:
The Generai Court reversed the judgment of the County Court, and awarded a procedendo*