Case Name: William Gaffney v. Middleton Bradford
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-06
Citations: 2 Bail. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Gaffney v. Middleton Bradford.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
William Gaffney v. Middleton Bradford.
The maker of negotiable notes cannot be made garnishee in attachment by. reason and in respect of the money due on them to the absent debtor.
209.
Before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Sumter, Spring Term, 1831.
Proceedings in foreign attachment. William Burrows, the garnishee, returned, “ that in January 1828, he had given Bradford, the defendant, three promissory notes for seven hundred and fifty dollars payable in one, two, and three years, which notes were negotiable ; and that he had no goods, &e. of Bradford in his hands, power, or possession.” After judgment against defendant in attachment, the plaintiff moved for leave to enter up judgment against the garnishee, for so much of the sum due on the notes, as would satisfy the judgment against the absent debtor; the plaintiff giving good security to indemnify the garnishee against the notes. The presiding Judge granted leave, and an order was entered accordingly.
The garnishee now moved to rescind the order, on the ground that the return exhibited no goods and chattels, or effects of the absent debtor, in the hands of the garnishee ; and that the maker of the negotiable notes was not liable as garnishee in attachment.
Mayrant, for the motion.

Opinion:
Harper, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is determined by a former decision of this Court, in the case of Brown v. Rogers, at Columbia, Spring Term, 1827. A person in possession of negotiable notes of an absent debtor may be made a garnishee in attachment, but not the maker of the notes. The probability is so great, that the absent dqbtor may have transferred negotiable notes, that it would be too great a [iartis}r¡p to COmpel the maker to pay the money, and resort indemnity, if he should be compelled to pay it over again. The motion is granted.