Barton v. Hermann, 11 Daly 296 (1882)

A valid attachment protects the attaching party and the executing officer from liability for actions taken under it while it is in force, even if the attachment is later vacated due to error, but a void attachment offers no such protection, whether vacated or not.

Summary

Barton, an assignee for the benefit of creditors of Hirschhorn & Co., sued Hermann, an indemnitor of a sheriff, for conversion of goods seized by the sheriff under an attachment against Hirschhorn & Co. Hermann argued the assignment was fraudulent. The trial court barred Hermann from challenging the assignment’s validity because the attachment had been vacated. The appellate court reversed, holding that a valid attachment protects actions taken before its vacation, but a void attachment offers no protection. The court reasoned that the defendants were entitled to litigate the validity of the assignment and that the prior ruling prevented them from presenting evidence regarding the validity of the underlying attachment.

Facts

J.M. Hirschhorn & Co. made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors to Barton. Goldschmidt and others, creditors of Hirschhorn & Co., obtained an attachment against Hirschhorn’s assets, alleging the assignment was fraudulent. The sheriff seized goods from Barton’s possession under the attachment. Barton sued the sheriff for conversion. Hermann, the indemnitor of the sheriff, was substituted as the defendant.

Procedural History

Barton sued Hermann (as indemnitor for the sheriff) for conversion. The trial court ruled Hermann could not challenge the validity of the assignment, based on the admission in the answer that the attachment was vacated. The jury was instructed to consider only damages. Hermann appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a defendant, indemnifying a sheriff who seized goods under an attachment later vacated, can challenge the validity of the underlying assignment for the benefit of creditors alleged to be fraudulent.
2. Whether the subsequent vacation of a valid attachment retroactively invalidates actions taken under the attachment before its vacation.

Holding

1. Yes, because the defendants, standing in the shoes of the sheriff, are entitled to demonstrate that the assignment was fraudulent to justify the original seizure under a valid attachment.
2. No, because a valid attachment protects the officer and party for actions taken under it while it was in force; vacation for error does not retroactively make those actions a trespass.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that goods fraudulently assigned are attachable at the suit of a defrauded creditor, distinguishing this from situations involving equitable assets. As indemnitors, the defendants had the right to defend the sheriff’s actions by proving the attachment was valid and the assignment was fraudulent. The court cited Day v. Bach, emphasizing that a valid attachment protects actions taken under it until it is set aside. The court distinguished between a valid attachment vacated for error and a void attachment. A valid attachment protects the officer and party for actions taken before vacation, while a void attachment provides no protection at all. The court noted that the lower court’s ruling, made in limine, prevented the defendants from presenting evidence about the attachment proceedings, assuming there was a valid attachment but incorrectly holding that its subsequent vacation deprived the defendants of their justification. The court emphasized the importance of determining whether the attachment was initially valid, as that would determine whether the defendants could justify the seizure, regardless of the later vacation.