Raymond v. Rockland Co.

Service of a factorizing process was imperfectly made upon the garnishee, so that the debt due from him to the original debtor was not legally attached. The garnishee appeared before the court and disclosed, and was found to be indebted, and a scire facias was afterwards brought against him by the factorizing creditor. Held that the garnishee could not waive the defect in the original service, so as to make the attachment a valid one as against the original debtor. And it seems that the defect in the original attachment can be taken advantage of by the garnishee upon the scire facias under the general issue without notice. And that where a corporation is factorized, if it has a secretary with whom a copy of the process can be left by the officer, it is not enough to leave the copy with a person who is president, treasurer, financial manager, and general agent of the corporation.

Scire Facias upon a process of foreign attachment; brought before a justice of the peace and appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, of New London County, and there tried to the court, on the general issue, before Willey, J. The defendants were a joint stock manufacturing company, doing business in the town of Montville. The plaintiff brought his writ of attachment against one Ichabod Stoddard, to which a factorizing process was attached, in which the present defendents were described as the agents, factors, trustees, and debtors of Stoddard, the same being dated the 20th day of November, 1872, and returnable before Erastus Huntley, Esq., a justice of the peace. The process was served on the Rock-land Company by the officer leaving in the hands of Norman B. Church a true and attested copy. The officer supposed that Church was the secretary and treasurer of the company, and so described him in his return on the writ. Church, however, was not the secretary, but Henry A. Baker who resided in the town of Montville was the secretary, and Church was the president, treasurer, financial manager, and general agent of the company. At the time the copy was left with him the officer inquired how much was due Stoddard, and he said there was from $50 to $75 duo him, and that it was all right. In the suit before the justice, Henry A. Baker, the secretai-y, appeared and made disclosure, and made no objection to the service of the writ upon the company. Baker denied that the Rockland Company, was indebted to the defendant, but the court found the company indebted. The plaintiff recovered judgment against Stoddard for $35.76 debt, and $28.73 costs of suit, and execution issued. The officer made demand of Stoddard, arid he neglecting to pay, made demand on the Rockland Company for moneys, goods and effects of Stoddard in their hands, and of any debts due from them to him. They refused to pay or to expose any goods or effects of Stoddard, and thereupon the present suit was instituted. Upon the trial in the Court of Common Pleas the defendants showed that, at the time of the original attachment, and for sometime prior thereto, Baker was the secretary of the company, residing in Montville, and that no other service of the factorizing process was made than that of leaving a copy with Church ; and they thereupon claimed that the plaintiff ought not to recover. The plaintiff' claimed, and asked the court to rule, that the defendants were estopped by the declarations and conduct of the president and secretary of the company from denying that the debt due from the company to Stoddard had been legally attached in the hands of the company. The court did not so rule. The plaintiff further claimed, and asked the court to rule, that the defendants could not, under the plea of the general issue without notice, contradict the officer’s return, and show that no legal attachment had been made of the debt due from the company to Stoddard. The court did not so rule. At the time the copy was left with Church there was due from the Rockland company to Stoddard the sum of $55.21, which, if the service had been legal, would have been secured by the factorizing process. The court, however, ruled that no legal attachment was made of the debt, and gave judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff moved for a new trial for error in this ruling of the court.