Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Chumbey

• Decision Date: 05 May 1891
• Citation: 9 So. 286,92 Ala. 317
• Parties: ALABAMA G. S. R. CO. v. CHUMBEY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

9 So. 286

92 Ala. 317

ALABAMA G. S. R. CO. v. CHUMBEY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 5, 1891

Appeal from city court of Birmingham, H. A. SHARPE, Judge.

Wood & Wood, for appellant.

A W. Cochran and J. M. Martin, for appellee.

CLOPTON J.

Appellee having recovered judgment by default against appellant in a justice's court for wages due him, the case was removed by certiorari to the city court. On the trial de novo in the city court, appellant set up as defense that H. B. Case sued plaintiff in a justice's court in Hamilton county, Tenn and recovered judgment August 16, 1884. Sundry executions having been issued and returned "No property," a pluries execution was issued on the judgment, and placed in the hands of a regular constable, who duly garnished defendant. The company answered the garnishment admitting indebtedness, and judgment was rendered against the company, which it was compelled to pay, and did pay, into the justice's court in Tennessee, being the same debt and amount claimed by plaintiff in the present suit. The plea further avers that all the proceedings were regular, and that, according to the statute of Tennessee, the judgment in the garnishment suit is conclusive between the company and plaintiff. At the time the suit was brought by Case, plaintiff was residing in Hamilton county, Tenn., and the process was personally served, whereby the court acquired jurisdiction of his person. The averments of the plea as to the suit, the rendition of judgment, the issue of executions, notice of garnishment, judgment thereon, and the payment of the money into court, are satisfactorily proved. It appears from the admission of counsel that defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Alabama, but running and operating its railroad from Chattanooga, Tenn., through Alabama, to Meridian, Miss., and that the claim of plaintiff is for work done for the company in Alabama; he being at the time, and still a resident of this state. The power of a state to subject foreign corporations to the same liabilities and duties imposed on like corporations of the state, including liability to be sued and served with process in the same manner, is not questioned. In Banking Co. v. Carr, 76 Ala. 388, it is said: "It is well settled, however, that no action in personam can be maintained against a foreign corporation unless the contract sued on was made, or the injury complained of was suffered, in the state in which the action is brought." Garnishment is a species of proceeding in rem, in the nature of a sequestration of the debtor's effects. Unless the property is within the jurisdiction of the court issuing the garnishment, so that it may be seized, jurisdiction, neither of the res nor the person, can be acquired. As a general rule, a person cannot be subjected to garnishment by the courts of a state in which he may be temporarily, different from that of his domicile, unless he has property of the debtor in his possession, or owes him a debt payable in such...