Court Opinion

ID: 9855943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:34:39.734665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:18.597487
License: Public Domain

M'Kean, Chief Justice.
It is clearly the general rule that a garnishee is not liable for interest, while he is restrained from the payment of his debt, by the legal operation of a foreign attachment. But it is said by the plaintiff’s Counsel, and I assent to the proposition, that if there is any fraud, or collusion; nay, if there is any unreasonable delay occasioned by the con*216duct of the garnishee himself, such cases will form exceptions to the general rule. In the present instance, however, there is no proof of fraud, or collusion; nor of any wilful procrastination on the part of the garnishee; and fraud can never be presumed. It is true, likewise, that no express authority was given for laying the attachments; but an implied authority appears in the correspondence that has been produced: And the defendant is not answerable for the event. I am, therefore, of opinion that; interest ought not to be allowed.
Snippen, Justice.
Evidence will often strike different minds in a different manner. It does not appear to me, that there was sufficient authority for instituting the foreign attachment; but, on the contrary, that it was done officiously, and at the instance of the garnishee himself. I should, consequently, think it just, on this occassion, to allow the claim of interest; but the majority of the Court will sanction a different decision.