Atchison Ry Co v. Wells

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

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. 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 did not own or operate any line of railroad within the state, and had no agent there. The Texas statutes concerning garnishment were construed and applied in the Wells suit, so as to permit a citizen and resident of another state to prosecute in Texas a cause of action which arose elsewhere against a railroad corporation of another...

To continue reading

Request your trial
103 cases
  • Riehle v. Margolies 1929
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1929
    ...93, 65 L. Ed. 205; Essanay Film Co. v. Kane, 258 U. S. 358, 361, 42 S. Ct. 318, 66 L. Ed. 658; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Wells, 265 U. S. 101, 103, 44 S. Ct. 469, 68 L. Ed. 928. Here there is no basis for any such The contention that the judgment is not conclusive rests upon th......
  • Miles v. Illinois Cent Co
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1942
    ...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 extra-stat......
  • Toucey v. New York Life Ins Co Phoenix Finance Corporation v. Bridge Co, IOWA-WISCONSIN
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1941
    ...U.S. 115, 35 S.Ct. 255, 59 L.Ed. 492; Essanay Film Co. v. Kane, 258 U.S. 358, 42 S.Ct. 318, 66 L.Ed. 658; Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101, 44 S.Ct. 469, 68 L.Ed. 928; Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 254 U.S. 175, 41 S.Ct. 93, 65 L.Ed. 205. In the Simon case, Mr. Justice Lamar ......
  • Kansas City v. Terminal Railway Co., 29051.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 21, 1930
    ...261 U.S. 184; Davis v. Farmers Co-operative Co., 262 U.S. 312; Dayton Goose Creek Ry. Co. v. United States, 263 U.S. 456; A.T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Wells, 265 U.S. 101; Railroad Commission v. Ry. Co., 264 U.S. 331; McAnany v. Railroad Co., 238 N.Y. 132. (6) Specific performance is not the prop......
  • 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