Case Name: SHELDON v. SIMONDS
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-08
Citations: 1 Wright 724
Docket Number: 
Parties: SHELDON v. SIMONDS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 750–751

Head Matter:
SHELDON v. SIMONDS.
Yendee’s protection against encumbrances — attachment—garnishee—setoff— substitution — judgment in error.
Where one purchases land and takes a conveyance, giving his note for part of the purchase-money, if the land is encumbered he may pay the encumbrance and set it off against his note.
And if he be garnished as the debtor of his vendor, the attaching creditor only takes the place of the vendor, and cannot compel payment unless the encumbrance is removed.
The Court of Error reversing a judgment of the Common Pleas may render such judgment as the Common Pleas should have rendered.
Error to the Common Pleas. Simonds sued out a writ of attachment against one J. S., an absconding debtor, in January, 1832. The 1st of February, 1832, Sheldon was summoned in as garnishee,, who answered, denying his indebtedness. Final judgment was had on the attachment against J. S. the 23d June, 1832 — after which proceedings were had to subject Sheldon, notwithstanding his denial of indebtedness. On the trial of the issue made up under the statute, it appeared in evidence that Sheldon purchased a piece of land of J. S., took a deed, paid most of the purchase-money, and gave a note for the balance, some time before the attachment. *After the note was given, Sheldon discovered there was a [725' judgment against J. S. which bound the land. In December, 1831, execution upon the judgment was levied upon the land; but before the sale or payment of the judgment, the summons was served on Sheldon as garnishee of the debt due by the note for the balance of the purchase. In March, 1832, Sheldon, to disencumber the land and perfect his title, paid off the execution, which required a greater sum than was due J. S. on his note. On this state of fact, the-Court of Common Pleas was of opinion the law was with the attaching creditor, and gave judgment against Sheldon for the amount of his note to J. S. and interest. To reverse which this writ is brought.
Loomis for the plaintiff in error.
McConnell contra.

Opinion:
WRIGHT, J.
The simple question here is, was Sheldon when summoned in as garnishee indebted to J. S., the defendant in attachment? The purchase he made was of the land; for that he gave his note. The conveyance to him of this land was subject to the lien of another for a greater sum than was due of the purchase-money. In justice and equity, then, he owed nothing until the encumbrance was removed, and J. S. could not, though the note was overdue, compel him to pay without discharging the encumbrance —without that, there was a failure of consideration. The attaching creditor by operation of law was substituted to his debtor's rights— stood in his shoes. He acquired no new right. If, then, this encumbrance and payment would have been good against J. S., it was equally good against Simonds. The judgment of the Common Pleas is reversed, and final judgment is rendered here against Simonds for costs, that being the judgment the Common Pleas should have rendered.