Brahan v. First National Bank of Clarksville
Brahan v. First National Bank of Clarksville
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
In each of the notes executed to Ragsdale, appellant agreed
It is not controverted that the judgment appealed from represents the commissions only on such of the notes as were past due when placed in the hands of appellee’s attorneys, who after-Avards collected the principal and interest. Appellant rested his defense in the court below, and seeks a reversal here, on the ground that, before maturity of said notes, he was garnished in the chancery suit against Ragsdale, and paid the principal and interest promptly after his discharge, consequent upon the dismissal of the suit; that the services of attorneys were unnecessary, since he would have paid at maturity but for the garnishment. Instead of demurring to defendant’s plea setting-up these facts, plaintiff joined issue thereon, and the evidence was mainly directed to the controverted question, whether defendant, in fact, promptly and voluntarily made payment after being released from the garnishment.
As we view the case, this issue was immaterial. The mere pendency of the garnishment against Brahan did not exempt him from liability to an action on the notes. Ragsdale or his assignee still had the right to reduce the notes to judgment, this being a mere step towards collecting them. Railway Co. v. Falton, 71 Miss., 385. If appellant had wished to escape possible liability for attorneys’ fees and accumulating interest, he should have availed of his privilege to pay into court the amount of the notes as they fell due, suggesting the fact of their negotiation if known to him. Smith v. Bank, 60 Miss., 69. He failed to pursue this course, and, as appears from his own testimony, did not care to be released from the garnishment. The result reached, however arrived at, is the only one proper under the evidence, and the judgment is
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- F. V. Brahan v. First National Bank of Clarksville
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Not®. Stipulation for attorney’s fee. -Validity. A stipulation in a note to pay ten per cent, commission in addition to principal and interest, if not paid at maturity, and' if collected by an attorney, is valid. Meacham v. Pinson, 60 Miss., 217; Byrich v. Bank, 67 Ib., 60. 2. Same. Garnishment. Duty to pay into court. Where the maker of a note containing- such a stipulation is garnished in respect to the debt, and fails to pay into court the same, when due, he continues liable to an action on the note, and to pay the commission, if collection is made by an attorney; and this, although he pays promptly after being discharged as garnishee. Smith v. Bank, 60 Miss., 69.