Lord Mayor's Court.-Monda...
(Before merECOILDrA) * al tiaL1 in tn1s actionl zought to *ttach a sumi Of 2(jf., the Uo W1edg5d~m~vota,3f. Pltksring in thehands of AMr. Bury, =s the te~retary to theL bleo~ Iiburance (3mpany.. MT. BOLLAN- obweted that nioney-orr goods to be Ifable to, a?ttchmnct Thust be In the personal poosession of the gatnishee. Here the monye due to.Pickerng was payable only by the order of the Directors tlih CoinAnya and rot unde 'the absolute control of the ecretary. .By' the slope Insurance Coumpany's set -thie 'were allowed to sue ana be s'ued inL the namie of their secretary, but an attachment; he contended, was no suinge. Mr.LxwA, on thecontrary urged, that if an attachment was rnot to be considered Xs -s."', tb0.3D attachment coild ir. any cac issue against Insurance oinpanies. He thought thal the spirit of the act, wbich allowed the secretary to sue anda be sued, would jetiryr that Curt'in iattitahing.the property, and had no doubt that the j?'gm;nt uf'that Court would protect 3ury, as garnishee, ,gal nn any- futureadtion by Fickering. T'he R-clnv however, gave it ashli:iopinion, that the money was ot o rste. pesonll n te scretary, as to make him a gar- ~iihec I 'ws ruetht te. omanys ebtrsmight seu him, but is espnsiiliy ws mrel noina: singthe secretary was inlyhe od,ebywith?eCop~,ytheeall reponiWble parties, LORD 2A,AYOR C0UA.-O,Ar. JUKs 21. ___. jWANAY V. UIty, t5s