In the United States v. Bryan and Woodcock, two individuals were accused of being garnishees of Hendrickson's debt. The Supreme Court held that a judgment creditor has no right to attach or levy on property in the hands of third persons unless it is shown that such person had notice at the time he received it, either actual or constructive, that it was liable to be attached for debts due from his principal. In this case, there was no evidence presented showing any knowledge by Bryan and Woodcock regarding Hendrickson’s debt when they received payment from him; thus their possession could not be considered as subject to attachment by Hendrickson’s creditors. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Bryan and Woodcock since they did not have any prior knowledge about Hendrickson’s debt when receiving money from him.

In the case of United States v. Bryan and Woodcock, two garnishees of Hendrickson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a judgment against an individual could be enforced by attaching his property in the hands of third parties. The majority opinion held that such attachment was permissible under federal law; however, Justice Johnson dissented from this ruling. He argued that Congress had not intended for judgments to be enforced through garnishment proceedings and that there were no laws authorizing it at common law either. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such attachments would lead to great injustice as creditors could take advantage of debtors who may have been unaware or unable to defend themselves against these claims due to their lack of knowledge about legal proceedings or financial resources needed for representation in court. In conclusion, Justice Johnson believed that Congress should pass legislation specifically permitting garnishment before any action could be taken against individuals' property held by third parties on their behalf.