Atchison Ry Co v. Wells, No. 232

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRANDEIS
Citation265 U.S. 101,68 L.Ed. 928,44 S.Ct. 469
Decision Date12 May 1924
Docket NumberNo. 232
PartiesATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. WELLS et al

265 U.S. 101
44 S.Ct. 469
68 L.Ed. 928
ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO.

v.

WELLS et al.

No. 232.
Argued and Submitted April 23, 1924.
Decided May 12, 1924.

Page 102

Messrs. A. H. Culwell, of El Paso, Tex., and Alex Britton, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Mr. George E. Wallace, of El Paso, Tex., for respondents.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Wells, a citizen and resident of Colorado, employed by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, was injured while performing his duties in New Mexico. He sued the company in a state court of Texas, but could not make personal service upon it within that state.1 Wells procured from the same court a writ of garnishment to a Texas railroad company whose line connected with the Santa Fe, which had in its possession Santa Fe rolling stock, and which owed to it large sums on traffic balances. Thereafter constructive service was made upon the Santa Fe, by serving one of its officers in Kansas and by publication in a Texas newspaper. The Santa Fe did not appear in the action, and judgment in the sum of $4,000 and costs was entered against it by default. Objection by the garnishee to the jurisdiction having been overruled, a judgment was entered that Wells recover from it this sum with interest and costs, in satisfaction of his judgment against the Santa Fe. To enjoin the enforcement of these judgments, suit was brought by the Santa Fe in the federal court for western Texas against Wells, who had meanwhile become a resident of that state, and his counsel. The case was heard on agreed facts, and a decree dismissing the bill was affirmed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Page 103

285 Fed. 369. It is here on writ of certiorari under section 240 of the Judicial Code. 261 U. S. 612, 43 Sup. Ct. 519, 67 L. Ed. 826.

The rolling stock held by the garnishee was then being used in interstate commerce and the amount due on traffic balances arose out of transactions in such commerce. These facts did not render the property immune from seizure by attachment or garnishment. Davis v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co., 217 U. S. 157, 30 Sup. Ct. 463, 54 L. Ed. 708, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 823, 18 Ann. Cas. 907. But the writ of garnishment is void because of the purpose for which it was invoked. The Santa Fe is a Kansas corporation. It had not been admitted to Texas as a foreign corporation. It had not consented to be sued there. It...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 practice notes
  • Bankers' Mortg. Bond Co. v. Rosenthal, 6 Div. 987.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 27, 1932
    ...41 S.Ct. 93; Essanay Film Mfg. Co. v. Kane, 258 U.S. 358, 361, 66 L.Ed. 658, 660, 42 S.Ct. 318; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101, 103, 68 L.Ed. 928, 931, 44 S.Ct. 469. Here there is no basis for any such exception." And our decisions, Kibbe v. Scholes, 219 Ala. 571, 123 So......
  • State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte, No. 40241.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 8, 1947
    ...of Railroads, v. Farmers Cooperative Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S. Ct. 556, 67 L. Ed. 996; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101, 44 S. Ct. 469, 68 L. Ed. 928. (5) There is no venue over either of relators in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, because no ca......
  • Baltimore Co v. Kepner, No. 20
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1941
    ...and the public. This doctrine has been consistently followed in a series of unanimous decisions. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101, 44 S.Ct. 469, 68 L.Ed. 928; Michigan Central v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470; Hoffman v. State of Missouri ex rel. Foraker, 274 U......
  • Miles v. Illinois Cent Co, No. 272
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1942
    ...S.Ct. 797, 78 L.Ed. 1396, limiting Davis v. Farmers' Cooperative Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 556, 67 L.Ed. 996; Atchison Ry. Co. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101, 44 S.Ct. 469, 68 L.Ed. 928, and Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470, to the rule that suits upon extr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
83 cases
  • Bankers' Mortg. Bond Co. v. Rosenthal, 6 Div. 987.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 27, 1932
    ...41 S.Ct. 93; Essanay Film Mfg. Co. v. Kane, 258 U.S. 358, 361, 66 L.Ed. 658, 660, 42 S.Ct. 318; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101, 103, 68 L.Ed. 928, 931, 44 S.Ct. 469. Here there is no basis for any such exception." And our decisions, Kibbe v. Scholes, 219 Ala. 571, 123 So......
  • State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte, No. 40241.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 8, 1947
    ...of Railroads, v. Farmers Cooperative Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S. Ct. 556, 67 L. Ed. 996; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101, 44 S. Ct. 469, 68 L. Ed. 928. (5) There is no venue over either of relators in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, because no ca......
  • Baltimore Co v. Kepner, No. 20
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1941
    ...and the public. This doctrine has been consistently followed in a series of unanimous decisions. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101, 44 S.Ct. 469, 68 L.Ed. 928; Michigan Central v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470; Hoffman v. State of Missouri ex rel. Foraker, 274 U......
  • Miles v. Illinois Cent Co, No. 272
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1942
    ...S.Ct. 797, 78 L.Ed. 1396, limiting Davis v. Farmers' Cooperative Co., 262 U.S. 312, 43 S.Ct. 556, 67 L.Ed. 996; Atchison Ry. Co. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101, 44 S.Ct. 469, 68 L.Ed. 928, and Michigan Central R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470, to the rule that suits upon extr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT