Case Name: Brown, Green & Co. vs. Isaac Minis
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1821-01
Citations: 1 McCord 80
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brown, Green & Co. vs. Isaac Minis.
Judges: Justices Bay, Nott, Gantt and Richardson, concurred..
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 80–82

Head Matter:
Brown, Green & Co. vs. Isaac Minis.
Quere. — Tf a Corporation of another State can maintain an action in this state, in its corporate name ?
A. recovered a judgment against B. and assigned it to the Bank of Georgia for valuable consideration. Afterwards C. a creditor of A. sued out a writ of attachment against A. and a copy of the writ was served upon B. as garnishee. The Bank filed a suggestion, stating its claim; to which C. demurred, on the ground that the Corporation was a creature of another State, and could not prosecute a suit in this. Held, th'at the suggestion of the Bank substantially alleged, and the demurrer consequently admitted that the Bank had a corporate existence, and that the judgment had been assigned for valuable consideration ; which assignment operated so as to divest the absent debtor of all property in the judgment, and it was not therefore subject to the attachment.
TLrIED at Coosawbatcliie, April Term, 1820.
The defendant and his co-partner, Jacob P. Henry, trading under the firm of Minis &? Henry, of Savannah, recovered a judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, for Beaufort district, against Saúl Solomons £s? Co. for S 9000; arid afterwards, for a valuable consideration, assigned that judgment to the Bank of the State of Georgia. In 1819, th¿ plaintiffs, who were creditors of the defendant, Isaac Minis, sued out a writ of attachment against his effects, re r.urnabie to tbe Court of Common Fleas, for Beaufort district, which was served on Saul Solomons S? Co. as gai m-shees. In their return to this writ, Saul Solomons £'<?. admitted themselves indebted to Minis Henry, to the amount of the judgment against them. At this stag*- of the proceedings, the Bankof the State of Georgia, in its corporate name, interposed her claim to this judgment, and filed a suggestion in pursuance ci the attachment act, setting forth the assignment of the judgment to her by >he said Minis &? Henry, thereby putting in issue the right of property in the said judgment.
To this suggestion, the plaintiffs demurred, and assigned for cause, that the Bank of the State of Georgia being the creature of another State, and unknown to the laws of this State, could not maintain an action here in its corporate name!
The presiding Judge gave judgment for 'the plaintiffs in demurrer, and a motion was made, on the part of the Bank of the State of Georgia, to reverse that judgment.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Johnson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Most of the grounds of the present motion have been directed to the question made by the cause of demurrer set forth by the plaintiffs, and present the enquiry, n-he-ther a foreign corporation can rnaintainyf®* fion ]•< . fr-its corporate name ? And to this_,.-point, the argunm-tr have been principally directecby'bui the Court have not thought proper to express tin opinion on it, as it is wholly unnecessary to the decision of the present case. The suggestion on the pavtof the Bank in its corporate mime, substantially all(">,oíi, and the demurrer consequently admits that the B^hk had a corporate,existence, and that the judgment against Saul Solomons Co. had been assigned to it for a valuable consideration.
The question then is not, whether the Bank can maintain an sfctiou or not in its corporate name, hut whether the property in the judgment still remained in Minis Hs? Henrfy • for, in that event alone, could it be the subject of condemnation at the suit of an attaching creditor? The facts furnish the answer; they were divested by the assignment. Notwithstanding therefore the issue joined be'tween the attaching creditor, and the party claiming the thing attached, does, in some measure, partake of the properties of an action, the only, question is, whether the thing attached is the property of the absent debtor, and whether the party claiming, does or does not labor under a disability to sue ? If they are entitled to hold the thing attached, it is surely a sufficient reason why it should not be condemned as the property of the absent debtor.
Petigru, for the motion.
King, contra.
.The motion is, therefore, granted.
Justices Bay, Nott, Gantt and Richardson, concurred..
See Bacon, Corporation E. 2. 2 Lord Ray, 1532. 1 Str. 613,