Case Name: Armand Caignett against Gilbaud, Rouge and Co. and Andrew Pettit et al. garnishees
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1795-12
Citations: 2 Yeates 35
Docket Number: 
Parties: Armand Caignett against Gilbaud, Rouge and Co. and Andrew Pettit et al. garnishees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 2
Pages: 35–36

Head Matter:
Armand Caignett against Gilbaud, Rouge and Co. and Andrew Pettit et al. garnishees.
Foreign attachment against G. R. and Go.; a private debt due by tlio garnishees to R. may be attached under the suit against the company.
Case stated for the opinion of the court. A writ of foreign attachment in case was issued by the plaintiff against the principal defendants, with directions indorsed thereon, “ Attach property in the hands of Andrew Pettit and Andrew Bayard.” A writ of inquiry was awarded, and, 1905k damages found. In January term 1793, judgment was entered on the attachment, and a scire facias returnable to April term 1795, issued against the garnishees. In September term 1795, the garnishees plead no effects, and issue is joined thereon.
The garnishees had dealings with Monsieur Rouge, one of the defendants in the attachment; but they never had any dealings or correspondence with the house of G-ilbaud, Rouge and Co. at the time when that house became indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum for which judgment is rendered. The garnishees in consequence of their said dealings with Mons. Rouge, became indebted to him in his individual capacity, in abalance of 1741k 5s. 92. which sum yet remains in their hands.
The question submitted to the court is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover against the garnishees, under the above circumstances?
On the part of the defendants it was said, that the objects of the attachment laws were equally the security of the garnishees, as the preservation of the interests of the creditors. Pettit and Bayard could not justify the payment of the balance in their hands under this attachment. They have no goods of Gilbaud, Rouge and Co. in their possession, but effects merely of Rouge in his individual capacity, and of this they could take advantage under their plea. A debt cannot he attached, where the defendant as named in the attachment, could not support a suit- against the garnishees for such debt in their hands. The garnishees should not be surprised; the notice given to them should be in law as well as in fact.
The plaintiff insisted, that here was no surprise on the garnishees. They were made fully -acquainted with the claim of the plaintiff, and against whom that claim subsists, and they will be fully secured under the judgment of the court against Mons. Rouge. It is of importance to -trade, that the remedies of creditors against foreign debtors should be enlarged. Part nership property is not always to be found; and the defendant’s construction would greatly abridge the ’ resources of creditors by-attachment. A contract, when made with partners, though originally joint, may be separate as to its effects. Though all are sued jointly, and a joint execution taken out, yet it may be executed against one only. Each is answerable for the whole, and not merely for his proportionable part. Equity will make the rest contribute. 2 Bla. Rep. 919. So it is where only one of the partners- is arrested.
Foreign attachments must be considered in the same light as writs of capias. They merely serve to compel an appearance. Garth. 26. Neither party shall be placed in abetter or worse situation by bringing them, as'in the case of a demand sued for, which is barred by the statute of limitations. So if the debt attached consists of bonds due at a future day, the same shall not be recovered from the garnishees, until they become due, according to the terms of the contract. But the principle laid down by the defendants, that no other debt can be attached, than such as the original defendants could have sued for, is denied; no such case is to be found in the books. Here the specific property of Rouge has been actually attached, which puts the matter out of all question.
Messrs. Lewis, M. Levy and Moylan, pro quer.
Mr. Pn Ponceau, pro clef.

Opinion:
By the court.
Let judgment be entered pro quer.