Haffey v. Miller
Haffey v. Miller
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court is of opinion that the rents and profits of the real estate of the absent defendant, which accrued after the levy of the attachment, were not bound by or subject to such general order of attachment. That though the levy of the attachment and restraining order constitutes such a lien on the land as to give the attaching creditor priority of satisfaction out of the proceeds of the land when sold, over subsequent alienees or incumbrancers, such general order does not operate as a sequestration of the rents and profits thereafter accruing. All, therefore, that the garnishee in this case could be held responsible for, on account of the rents of the real estate of the absent defendant, was her one third of the not amount of the rents received and collected by him as her agent for rents accruing before the 27th of April 1829, the day on which it is recited by the decree he was served with the attachment: And without expressing any opinion as to the regularity of the proceedings against the absent defendant, as against
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Haffey &c. v. Miller &c.
- Status
- Published