Porter v. West

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1886

Porter v. West, 64 Miss. 548 (Miss. 1886)

Arnold

Opinion of the Court

Arnold, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

For several reasons the claim of West, the alleged assignee, should not have been entertained or allowed by the court. If it be conceded that the deed of assignment was valid, his appointment as substituted trustee or assignee was void. The power conferred upon the beneficiaries in the deed of assignment, to appoint, on the occurrence of certain events, another assignee or trustee, was a trust reposed in them, which they could not delegate to others. Clark v. Wilson, 53 Miss. 119. Again, the garnishees had not alleged, as they might have done, under § 2449 of the code as amended by the act of 1884, Acts of 1884', page 74, without paying the money into court, that they had been notified that West, the alleged assignee, claimed title to or an interest in the debts which *551they respectively admitted to be due. This was a condition precedent to his right to interplead with the plaintiffs. The interpleader allowed in such case is for the protection of the garnishees, and if they do not invoke it for themselves another cannot do it for them. “ Courts of justice are not open, like tournaments, for errant knights to enter and tilt at pleasure.”

jReversed and remanded.

Reference

Full Case Name: Porter & Macrae v. R. R. West, Assignee
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Deed op Assionment. Power to appoint assignee. Trust reposed. Delegation of. Case in judgment. The power to appoint a substituted assignee or trustee under a deed of assignment which authorizes “a majority of the creditors in amount” in certain circumstances to make such appointment, is a trust reposed, and cannot be delegated to others. And in such case any appointment of a substituted assignee or trustee by an attorney of such creditors is void. Glark v. Wilson, 53 Miss. 119, cited. 2. Garnishment. Where answer does not allege notice of claim of third person. Interpleader. Case in judgment. B. made an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Afterward P. attached certain property of B., and caused writs of garnishment to be served on certain debtors of B. The attachment was sustained and judgment was rendered in favor of P. on his claim against B. The garnishees answered and admitted their indebtedness to B. without saying anything further. Thereupon W-, the assignee of B. interposed his claim to the debts due from the garnishees. Section 2449, Code of 1880, as amended by Acts of 1884, page 74, provides that where a garnishee in his answer alleges that he has been notified that another person claims the debt which he admits to be due, then citation shall be issued to such third person to appear and contest the claim with the plaintiff. Held, that since the garnishees failed to allege in their answers a notification of the claim of W. as contemplated in the statutes above referred to, W. of his own motion had no right to come in and claim the debts.