Hambley v. White & Co.

Stacy, C. J. The appeal presents the single question as to whether the trial court has correctly interpreted the decision rendered in this case at the Spring Term, 1926. Hambley & Co. v. White & Co., ante, 31. Beference may be had to the case as first reported, for a full statement of the facts, as well as for the opinion, which has now become the law of the ease. Strunks v. R. R., 188 N. C., 567. Each of the suits instituted by appellants is to be trie°d and prosecuted to judgment in the county of its rightful origin. This necessarily means that the garnishee must answer in each suit in the county of its institution or else run the risk of having judgment entered as provided by C. S., 820. It also means that the question of title to the property attached must be determined in each suit in the county of its origin, for in attachment, without personal service, this is a matter upon which jurisdiction depends. The fact that the question of title may be decided one way in some of the counties and differently in others is no *626 valid reason for denying to the present appellants the right to bring suit in their respective counties. Nor. is venue to be controlled by the convenience of interveners. The question of priority is the only one to be determined in Rowan Superior Court so far as the rights of appellants are concerned. For this purpose, it was proper to order that they be made parties defendant herein, but it was error to restrain them from proceeding plenarily in-their respective counties to try the title or ownership to the funds derived from the two sight drafts, the subject of attachment in all the suits. Let the cause be remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion and the opinion heretofore rendered. Error.