Case Name: Webb & Co. vs. Lea
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1834-05
Citations: 6 Yer. 473
Docket Number: 
Parties: Webb & Co. vs. Lea.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
Webb & Co. vs. Lea.
Tbe courts of this State have no jurisdiction of an original attachment when neither the plaintiff nor the defendant are citizens of this State, , and can render no judgment against a garnishee summoned upon such attachment.
The record shows that the attachment taken out in this caséis against Benjamin F. West, a citizen of the State of Louisiana. The defendant, Lea, was summoned as garnishee, and confessed that he was indebted to West about thirty-five hundred dollars; he filed a plea in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court in this case, setting out that the mercantile firm of Webb & Co. was located in Alabama, and that West was a citizen of Louisiana. The suit was stayed for six months in the county court of -Gibson, after which time the county court overruled the plea in abatement, and gave judgment against Lea. From this judgment against Lea, he appealed to the circuit court • where the same was reversed. From which judgment of the circuit court the plaintiffs appealed in error to this court.
Jl. B. Bradford, for plaintiffs in error.
H. Jl. Garrett, for defendant in error.
The defendant insists that there is no error in the judgment below, because the proceeding on the attachment being entirely void, a judgment rendered against him on the garnishment would have been^no protection against the claim of West for the thirty-five hundred dollars.
The act of 1794, ch. 1, sec. 21, only authorizes attachments to issue against an inhabitant of another State in favor of a person, a resident of this State; and the same act, in that and the two preceding sections, gives jurisdiction of attachments against non-residents to the superior court, which is by the act of 1809, vested in the circuit court.
The same act, in a subsequent section, establishes the courts, and in several sections defines its jurisdiction.
In the 55th section it declares what attachments shall be returnable to the county courts. The language of the act is, that a justice shall have power to grant attachments against the estate of any person absconding or concealing himself, or removing out of the county privately, returnable-to the court of such county.
This act is not materially different from the court law of 1777, on which this court adjudicated in 1 Yerg. Hep. 125, and decided in effect the very question presented in this case. So in Cooke’s Reports, 49.
For these reasons the defendant insists that the judgment of the circuit court ought to be affirmed.

Opinion:
Peck, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The attachment on its face shows, that West is an inhabitant of another State, namely, Louisiana. The garnishee pleads that Webb is an inhabitant of Alabama; that the court cannot entertain jurisdiction of the cause; that if compelled to pay the money on the judgment improperly rendered against him as garnishee, the same will be no bar to a subsequent recovery at the suit of West, his creditor. These facts appearing upon the record, ousts the court of jurisdiction. See the case of Kincaid vs. Francis, administrator of Thomas, Cooke's Rep. 49, where the very point arose, and was determined. This case has been followed ever since in subsequent cases, it is believed, without exception. The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.