where an insurance company is summoned as garnishee in an action against a policy-holder, premiums due on policies previously assigned by the policy-holder with the consent of the company, cannot be set off against the amount due by the company on account of the loss.' And where insurance poli cies were assigned with a stipulation that a portion of the proceeds should be paid by the assignee to a third person, it was held that the assignee could not be charged as garnishee of the third person. Where a policy of insurance on goods at sea was assigned by the policy-holder to his creditor, and the goods were lost, and subsequently a creditor of the policyholder proceeded by garnishment against the insurance company, which had not received notice of the assignment, it was held that the assignment was sufficient to vest an equitable right in the assignee, and that the company could not be charged. Where the creditor of a policy-holder proceeded by garnishment against the insurance company to reach an amount due under a policy which was made payable to a third party "as his interest should appear," and his interest appeared to be that of a mortgagee of the insured property, under & mortgage which was not recorded, it was held that the mortgage was sufficient to uphold his right to the insurance money, to the amount actually due under the policy. But here, stress was laid upon the fact that the mortgage had been made in good faith. It would have been open to the garnishing creditor to contest the right of the mortgagee to the fund, upon the ground that the mortgage was fraudulent as against cred

itors.5

rent

§ 7817. Garnishment of Corporation Formed by ConcurAction of Different States. Corporations formed by the concurrent legislation of two or more States to build and operate an interstate bridge, or an interstate railway, are, as

already seen,' a domestic corporation within each of the States. Such a corporation is a resident of each of such States, for the purposes of the ordinary jurisdiction of its courts, and consequently may be subjected to garnishment in any one of them, provided the situs of the debt is there, though its principal office or place of business be not there.2

8 7818. Answer of the Garnishee.-The rule of the common law being that a corporation could not speak, nay even whisper, except by its corporate seal, it followed that, where this rule was adhered to, a corporation proceeded against as garnishee could answer only under its corporate seal. But the general disuse and abolition of corporate seals has rendered this rule obsolete, and it is believed that in such a case the corporation may answer without the use of its seal, by any authorized agent.*

8 7819. Relief in Equity against Garnishee. It is a principle of equity jurisprudence that equity will not relieve a party against a judgment recovered against him at law, unless he was prevented from making his defense by circumstances not necessary to be here stated, but "unmixed with negligence or fault on his part." For the purposes of this rule the negligence of the agent through whom the judgment-debtor acted in making his defense is imputable to him. Therefore, the negligence of an officer of a corporation, in allowing a judgment to be rendered against the corporation as garnishee, when the debt has been previously assigned to another party, and notice thereof has been given to another officer, will exclude such corporation from relief in equity against the judgment.2

§ 7820. Other Matters Relating to the Garnishment of Corporations. A number of other matters, depending mostly upon local statutes, will now be referred to, chiefly in the notes. The fact that the money is payable on the draft of the creditor or depositor upon giving a certain notice, as is usual where money is deposited at interest in a savings bank, does not prevent his creditor from seizing it by garnishment although

judgment for want of an answer, subject to be made final as in other Ex parte Cincinnati &c. R. Co., 78 Ala. 258. Under statutes of Michigan (How. Mich. Stat., § 8055, as amended by Mich. Pub. Acts

against as garnishee in a court of a justice of the peace in a different township from that in which the principal business office of the corporation is situated, may transmit by mail its disclosure verified by the oath of its proper officer. Whitworth v. Pelton, 81 Mich. 98; s. c. 45 N. W. Rep. 500. Compelling an answer under Alabama statute by attachment or judgment nisi: Ex parte Cincinnati &c. R. Co., 78 Ala. 258.

1 Foster v. Wood, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 87, 89; Marine Ins. Co. v. Hodgson, 7 Cranch (U. S.), 332; Bateman v. Willoe, 1 Sch. & Lef. 201; Slack v. Wood, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 40.

Richmond Enquirer Co. v. Rob

1885, p. 240), a corporation proceeded inson, 24 Gratt. (Va.) 548.

the notice has not been given.' It has been held in Missouri that the validity of a conveyance may be tried in a proceeding by garnishment in a court of law. Extending this doctrine, it is held that the question of the validity of a transfer of the assets of a corporation, alleged to have been made in fraud of creditors, may be tried in a proceeding by garnishment.3

Lee v. Tabor, 8 Mo. 322; Lackland v. Garesche, 56 Mo. 267.

' Clapp v. Hancock Bank, 1 Allen corporations, showing service on "the (Mass.), 394. within named garnishee," fatally defective: Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Seeligson, 59 Tex. 3, 7. The court say that "such a return is not sufficient upon an ordinary citation, and is equally defective as a return to a citation in garnishment": Citing Graves v. Robertson, 22 Tex. 130; Thomason v. Bishop, 24 Tex. 302; Ryan v. Martin, 29 Tex. 412. Attaching by garnishment the withdrawal value of shares in co-operative bank: Atwood v. Dumas, 149 Mass. 167; s. c. 21 N. E. Rep. 236; 3 L. R. A. 416.

8 Eyerman v. Krieckhaus, 7 Mo. App. 455. Garnishment of debt due to two corporations jointly, evidenced by note or draft alleged to have been transferred in fraud of creditors: Humphreys v. Atlantic Milling Co., 98 Mo. 542; s. c. 10 S. W. Rep. 140. That the affidavit must state that the garnishee is a corporation, or a partner ship, etc., see Insurance Co. v. Friedman, 74 Tex. 56. Return on the writ of garnishment directed against two

6216

§ 7826. Mandamus against Corporations to Compel Performance of Public Duties.-A writ of mandamus will be issued to compel a corporation to perform a public duty, where the duty is plainly prescribed by a mandatory statute, where there is clear proof of a breach of that duty, and where there is no other adequate legal remedy to compel its performance.' Thus, mandamus lies to enforce a provision in the charter of a railroad company requiring it to maintain its railroad in a con

"Where the charter of a corporation, or the general statute in force and applicable to the subject, imposes a specific duty, either in terms or by fair and reasonable construction and implication, and there is no specific or adequate remedy, the writ of mandamus will be awarded." 1 Redf. on Railw. (4th ed.) 644; quoted with approval in State v. Southern Minn. R. Co., 18 Minn. 40, 41. "But the writ will not be awarded, unless the right sought to be enforced is a complete and perfect legal right, and, of course, the reciprocal obligation a complete and

perfect legal obligation." Ibid.; citing Ex parte Napier, 18 Q. B. 692, 694. "The right and obligation are necessarily correlative; if there be no obligation, there is no right." Ibid. Mandamus lies where there is no other remedy at law, and the fact of there being a remedy in equity furnishes no objection to the remedy by mandamus; nor is it an objection that the respondent may be punished for omitting to do the act to compel which the mandamus is sought. People v. New York, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 393.