| N.J. | Feb 24, 1903
The opinion of the court was delivered by
These appeals present a single question, namely, whether it is any defence to an action upon contract that the debt sued for has been attached by a creditor of the plaintiff in the hands of the defendant. The two cases differ only in that the attachment in the case of Bailey had gone to judgment, while in the case of Naylor judgment had not been rendered. In neither case had the sum garnisheed been paid over by the defendant. The attachments were instituted in the State of West Virginia and levied upon wages earned in New Jersey by residents of the latter state. Neither these circumstances nor the validity of the attachment proceedings are of any consequence upon the question that is presented by these appeals, in view of the fact that the matter set up by the defendant does not meet the charge against it. It could not be pleaded in bar, for it neither denies the contract
Whether the pendency of an attachment suit of a different plaintiff should lead to the same practice is a question that is not now presented. All that is presented upon these appeals is the legal propriety of the action of the District Court in overruling the said defence and giving judgment for the plaintiffs. This action we affirm, and order that like judgments be entered pursuant to the statute under which these appeals are taken. Pamph. L. 1902, p. 565.
It may be that upon a proper application execution should be stayed, but upon this point no opinion is expressed.