23 A. 696 | Conn. | 1891
This is a suit, by a resident plaintiff, against defendants residing in the state of New York, commenced by process of foreign attachment. The defendants appeared only for the purpose of pleading to the jurisdiction. The Superior Court sustained the plea and dismissed the cause. The plaintiff appealed.
It appears that, before the suit was brought, the debt due from the garnishee to the defendants had been assigned by *155 the defendants, in a general voluntary assignment at common law for the benefit of creditors, of which the garnishee had received due notice; and the sole question relates to the effect of such assignment.
It is conceded, and it is manifest, that this case differs from that of Egbert v. Baker,
It appears to be the claim of the plaintiff that effect was given by this court to the assignment, in the case cited, by reason of the principle of comity, which recognized a foreign law, only since such recognition did not involve any deprivation of a resident creditor's rights. This contention is erroneous, for while it is true that this court has held that the mere courtesy or comity by which assignees, who derive their authority from the law of a foreign jurisdiction, may be allowed to maintain actions in our courts, should not be extended to defeat the rights of attaching creditors, no distinction has been made between such creditors, citizens of the United States, as were, or were not, citizens of this state. On the contrary, such distinction has been expressly denied. Upton v. Hubbard,
But in Egbert v. Baker no question of comity arose. As the court says, (p. 325,) it was "not a case for the application *156
of that principle." It was decided upon the general principles that a contract good in the place where made is good everywhere, that the debt had no situs, and that, for the purpose of assignment by the creditor, it followed the residence of the creditor. The contract made did not therefore deprive any resident creditor of any rights, for no such rights existed. "The contract affects neither citizens of this state nor property in the state." InClark v. Conn. Peat Co.,
The assignment having operated to transfer the debt, there was nothing due to the defendants from the garnishee at the time of service, and for that reason the plea to the jurisdiction was properly sustained.
There is no error in the judgment complained of.