Falchion:
The case is not a long read and it’s pretty straightforward. A handful of US Naval seamen owe money to “boarding house keepers”. The landlords get writs of attachment (i.e. garnishment) from the state court against the purser (of their vessel) to attach the wages of the seamen. The purser refuses to comply (at direction of the Secretary of the Navy). The Court concludes that you can’t use state process to “attach” these funds because (1) The purser is the same as any other “disbursing agent” of government funds; (2) Funds still in the possession of the disbursing agent remain sovereign money; (3) An attachment acts to “divert” the money to the creditor; and (4) “The funds of the government are specifically appropriated to certain national objects, and if such appropriations may be diverted and defeated by state process or otherwise, the functions of the government may be suspended.”
It’s like you’re reading the quote (or my argument) to hold that writs of garnishment fail as a matter of property law. But you know that the court didn’t hold that (I should hope) because you know that they are a very real thing. And you know (based on my earlier points) that the immunity has been waived so that, now, you can direct a writ of garnishment to the United States.
Right. I read the case now. Very short. I agree that it speaks of sovereign immunity, but also of property law. Under the principle announced in the case, why can’t Acme Inc. say that it has none of UltraVires’ money because it has not been disbursed yet?
Presumably Acme has some independent obligation to pay you. The garnishment order interposes itself into that relationship.