An attachment may be sued out for debts or demands not yet due, except in the first case covered by § 29-6-101, which is when the debtor or defendant lives out of state.
An attachment may, in like manner, be sued out upon debts or demands not due, in any of the cases mentioned in § 29-6-101 , except the first; that is, when the debtor or defendant resides out of the state. Code 1858, § 3456 (deriv. Acts 1855-1856, ch. 50, §§ 1, 3); Shan., § 5213; Code 1932, § 9400; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 23-602. Law Reviews. Commencing an Action by Garnishment, 23 Tenn. L. Rev. 211. NOTES TO DECISIONS 1. Nonresidence — Insufficiency of Grounds. 2. Prematurity as Defense. 3. Subsequent Attaching Creditors — Impeachment of Attachment. 4. Knowledge of Proceedings — Effect. 5. Successful Defendant — Liability for Costs. 1. Nonresidence — Insufficiency of Grounds. In an action ex contractu, an original attachment writ shall not issue for debts or demands not due, where the sole ground of the attachment is the nonresidence of the debtor or defendant. If any other ground exists, it may issue, although the debt is not due, as well against a nonresident as against a resident. Swan v. Roberts, 42 Tenn. 153, 1865 Tenn. LEXIS 34 (1865); Merchants Nat'l Bank v. McCarger, 56 Tenn. 401, 1872 Tenn. LEXIS 154 (1872). 2. Prematurity as Defense. Where an attachment for debt not due at the commencement of the suit has been defeated by a plea in abatement, there can be no decree for the debt, if the prematurity of the suit be relied on as a defense in the answer. Pigue v. Young, 85 Tenn. 263, 1 S.W. 889, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1886); Cheatham v. Pearce, 89 Tenn. 668, 15 S.W. 1080, 1890 Tenn. LEXIS 90 (1891); Casey & Hedges Mfg. Co. v. Weatherly, 101 Tenn. 318, 47 S.W. 432, 1898 Tenn. LEXIS 67 (1898). 3. Subsequent Attaching Creditors — Impeachment of Attachment. Subsequent attaching creditors may impeach an attachment for defects appearing on the face of the proceedings, as where the attachment was issued on the ground of the nonresidence of the defendant, to collect and secure debts not due; and, also, where the debtor and attaching creditor resided in the same foreign state, though this fact is not apparent on the face of the proceedings, and no affidavit was made by the attaching creditor, as required by § 29-6-109 . Bank of Rome v. Haselton, 83 Tenn. 216, 1885 Tenn. LEXIS 45 (1885). 4. Knowledge of Proceedings — Effect. While a debt not due is not enforceable by attachment, if the defendant knew of the proceeding and failed to defend on the ground of immaturity of the debt, he may not impeach a decree based thereon, so far as the property attached is concerned. People's Bank v. Williams, 36 S.W. 983, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 28 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1896). While an attachment based on a debt not due at the time the bill was filed and an affidavit of nonresidence was upheld as to property levied on where defendant had knowledge of the proceedings and failed to defend, a personal judgment was not enforceable as such, there being no service of process. People's Bank v. Williams, 36 S.W. 983, 1896 Tenn. Ch. App. LEXIS 28 (Tenn. Ch. App. 1896). 5. Successful Defendant — Liability for Costs. Where a successful defendant in an attachment suit, by his conduct and misrepresentations, though innocently made, induced the complainant to believe that he had good cause for attachment, he may be taxed with costs. Pigue v. Young, 85 Tenn. 263, 1 S.W. 889, 1886 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (1886). Collateral References. 6 Am. Jur. 2d Attachment and Garnishment §§ 56-59. 7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 15, 86. What is an action for “debt” within attachment statute. 12 A.L.R.2d 787. What sort of claim, obligation, or liability is within contemplation of statute providing for attachment, or giving right of action for indemnity, before a debt or liability is due. 58 A.L.R.2d 1451. Attachment 24.