3 Shan. Cas. 38 | Tenn. | 1878
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:
Tbe only matter before us in tbis case arises on tbe claim of Carrigan, in tbe cross bill to tbe judgment attached by Leatberwood in bis original bill.
"Without-going into a statement of tbe complicated facts shown in the record, as preliminary historical matters on which tbe question to be decided are raised, it suffices to sa.y, that two questions are [presented by tbe record for adjudication.
First, did Carrigan, by tbe assignment made by McGree, in November, 1873, of tbe judgment to which Rhodes was equitably owner, acquire a title to said judgment that would override tbe attachment of Leatberwood, a creditor of Rhodes?
To tbis we answer, it is certain be did not, it being in any view of it, an assignment of a judgment, and no notice of such assignment given or brought home to tbe debtor.
Tbis is almost tbe precise case of Clodfelter v. Cox, admr., 1 Sneed, 338, and falls unmistakably under tbe principle therein settled.
Tbe other question is, whether Carrigan, as an attorney, can bold tbe judgments by virtue of bis lien as such as against Leatberwood’s attachment? Tbe chancellor held that be could not. In tbis be is in error, we think, to tbis extent.
Tbe facts are that tbe judgments bad been assigned to Carrigan, but as we have said, that assignment was not perfected as to him against an attaching creditor, for want of notice. Carrigan certainly bad no general lien on these