Boyle v. Musser-Sauntry Land, Logging & Manufacturing Company

• Decision Date: 06 February 1903
• Docket Number: 13,147 - (205)
• Citation: 93 N.W. 520,88 Minn. 456
• Parties: DENNIS BOYLE v. MUSSER-SAUNTRY LAND, LOGGING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

93 N.W. 520

88 Minn. 456

DENNIS BOYLE v. MUSSER-SAUNTRY LAND, LOGGING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Nos. 13,147 - (205)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

February 6, 1903

Plaintiff, a citizen of Minnesota, recovered judgment against defendant, an Iowa corporation, in the district court for Washington county. Thereafter the Standard Lumber Company, a foreign corporation, brought an attachment suit in Iowa against this plaintiff and garnished defendant with respect to its indebtedness to this plaintiff. Plaintiff was not served with process in Iowa. Execution having been issued upon plaintiff's judgment, the district court for Washington county, Williston, J., made an order to show cause why all proceedings in this action should not be stayed to await the determination of the Iowa attachment suit. From this order plaintiff appealed, and upon his application a writ of certiorari also was issued from the supreme court directing the Hon. W. C. Williston to certify his proceedings in the premises for review. Order reversed and proceedings thereunder annulled.

SYLLABUS

Judgment against Foreign Corporation.

A judgment obtained in, and by a citizen of, this state against a corporation organized in another state, but doing business and having an agent and an office in this as required by Laws 1899, c. 69, cannot be impounded or condemned in either attachment or garnishment proceedings in the state where the judgment debtor was incorporated, in an action brought by a corporation of that state against the judgment creditor, upon whom substituted service, only, can be made of the process of the court or of notice of the proceedings.

Federal Constitution -- Service by Publication.

The provision of the constitution of the United States that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state" (article 4, § 1) is applicable only when the court rendering the judgment, or in which the proceedings are had, has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter, and does not apply to a judgment rendered or proceedings had by the court of one state against a nonresident debtor, in the absence of personal service upon him, within the state of the forum, or a voluntary appearance by such debtor.

J. N. Searles, for appellant.

It is an abuse of discretion to stay execution on this Minnesota judgment to await determination of the Iowa action, which when rendered will be coram non judice and void. The decisions of this court prescribing a stay of proceedings as the proper practice, apply to cases where the other court has jurisdiction over the debt sought to be reached by garnishment. Blair v. Hilgedick, 45 Minn. 23; Harvey v. Great Northern By. Co., 50 Minn. 405; Duxbury v. Shanahan, 84 Minn. 353; Lewis v. Bush, 30 Minn. 244; Swedish Am. Nat. Bank v. Bleecker, 72 Minn. 383. This judgment, or the rights of this appellant thereunder, cannot be controlled by the courts of another jurisdiction having no jurisdiction over the person of this appellant. National v. Furtick, 2 Marvel, 35, 69 Am. St. R. 114, note, et seq; 1 Freeman, Exns. (3d Ed.) § 161a, note; Tootle v. Coleman, 107 F. 41.

Garnishment cannot be sustained where the debt is in such a situation that the garnishment proceeding cannot be interposed by plea in bar of the action. Wadsworth v. Clark, 14 Vt. 139, and citations; 1 Freeman, Exns. (3d Ed.) § 166, and citations: Perkins v. Guy, 2 Mont. 47; Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Pet. 136; Norton v. Winter, 1 Ore. 47; Howell v. Freeman, 3 Mass. 121; Prescott v. Parker, 4 Mass. 170; Thorndike v. DeWolf, 6 Pick. 119; Esty v. Flanders, 16 N.H. 218; Clodfelter v. Cox, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 330; Trowbridge v. Means, 5 Ark. 135; Burke v. Hance, 76 Tex. 76. Judgment of one court cannot be garnished under a writ issued from another. Hamill v. Peck, 11 Colo.App. 1; Shinn v. Zimmerman, 3 Zab. 150; Sievers v. Woodburn, 43 Mich. 275; Noyes v. Foster, 48 Mich. 273; Scott v. Rohman, 43 Neb. 618; American v. Snow, 9 R.I. 11; Young v. Young, 2 Hill. (S.C.) 425; Henry v. Gold P.M. Co., 15 F. 649; 1 Freeman, Exns. (3d Ed.) § 166. A debt due by judgment may be garnished in the same court. Skipper v. Foster, 29 Ala. 330; Hitt v. Lacey, 3 Ala. 104; Calhoun v. Whittle, 56 Ala. 138, 142.

Clapp & Macartney, for respondent.

This court should not inquire further into the jurisdiction of the Iowa court than to see that that court is in fact asserting jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties. The proposition seems to be universal that whether a court of competent jurisdiction over the subject-matter of a given action has obtained, or can obtain, jurisdiction of the parties, is one for that court, and that court alone, in the first instance, to determine. And although this determination may be erroneous, the error can only be corrected on appeal or certiorari. National v. Chambers, 53 N.J.Eq. 468; Chicago, R.I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U.S. 710; Manier v. Trumbo, Fed. Cas. No. 18,309; Dowdy v. Wamble, 110 Mo. 280; Howland v. Chicago, 34 Mo. 474. Hence it would seem to follow that the learned judge in the court below exercised a wise discretion in making the order now complained of. Carrol v. McDonogh, 5 Mart. (La.) 299; Morton v. Webb, 7 Vt. 123; Montgomery v. Merrick, 61 Ala. 534; McKeon v. McDermott, 22 Cal. 667; Schealy v. Toole, 56 Ga. 210; Lancashire v. Corbetts, 165 Ill. 592.

While there is some conflict in the authorities as to whether a debt owing by a resident debtor to a nonresident creditor can be said to have such a situs in the state of the domicile of the debtor that it, the debt, may be attached in a suit against such nonresident creditor by his creditor, yet, so far as the courts of Minnesota, Iowa, and the United States are concerned, that question is settled and it is held that such a debt has or may have a situs at the domicile or residence of the debtor so that it may be attached or subjected to the payment of the debts of the creditor by garnishee or attachment proceedings. Harvey v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 50 Minn. 405; Willard v. Sturm, 96 Iowa 555; Chicago, R.I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Sturm, supra; Tootle v. Coleman, 107 F. 41; Mooney v. Buford & George Mnfg. Co., 72 F. 32.

A judgment for the recovery of money is subject to levy. Henry v. Traynor, 42 Minn. 234. A debt upon judgment is nothing more or less than a debt; a debt reduced to judgment is still a debt and by the weight of authority subject to garnishment. Luton v. Hoehn, 72 Ill. 81; Isabelle v. Le Blanc, 68 N.H. 409; Fithian v. New York, 31 Pa. St. 114; Scott v. Rohman, 43 Neb. 618; Burke v. Hance, 76 Tex. 76, 81.

OPINION

COLLINS, J.

Writ of certiorari directed to one of the judges of the district court of Washington county. From the record it appears that the plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Minnesota, while the defendant is an Iowa corporation carrying on an extensive logging and lumbering business in the state of Minnesota, managed by an agent residing in Stillwater, and with a "public office" in that city; such agent being appointed and such office located in accordance with the provisions of Laws 1899, c. 69. In an action between these parties arising out of a contract entered into in this state, judgment was entered on May 25, 1902, in the district court above mentioned, in favor of the plaintiff, Boyle, and against defendant company, for nearly $9,000. Four days after the entry of this judgment, the Standard Lumber Company, another Iowa corporation, commenced an action in the district court of that state, in which Boyle was named as defendant, to recover from him a sum in excess of $1,500, in which the plaintiff caused a writ to issue, directed to the sheriff of the county in which the suit was brought, and requiring him to attach Boyle's property, as a nonresident. The sheriff, as auxiliary to the writ of attachment, and in accordance with a statute of the state of Iowa, garnished this defendant, solely on account of the Minnesota judgment; and thereupon plaintiff, as creditor, caused an execution to be issued on the judgment, and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Washington county for service. It is admitted that, within the jurisdiction of this sheriff, the defendant, judgment debtor, had a large quantity of personal property subject to levy and sale, and that it was the intention of the sheriff to forthwith levy upon such property to satisfy the execution. This plaintiff has never been served in the state of Iowa with any notice or process of any kind in the action brought by the Standard Lumber Company, or in the garnishment proceedings, and has not appeared therein. This defendant then obtained an order requiring the plaintiff to show cause before the district court of the county in which his judgment was entered why all proceedings upon the execution should not be stayed until the determination of the garnishment proceedings, and the action in the state of Iowa, or until the defendant was released from any liability on account of the alleged garnishment. At the hearing this order to show cause was made absolute, and the sheriff was restrained from further proceeding with the execution.

We have a case, therefore, in which an execution has been issued to enforce the collection of a Minnesota judgment, obtained and entered on account of a Minnesota contract, against a debtor who, as a foreign corporation, is permitted to do business in this state solely because it has a resident agent appointed and a public office fixed here, as required by statute, and by reason thereof is a resident of this state for all purposes connected with its Minnesota business; and the enforcement of that execution and the collection of this judgment have been indefinitely stayed in order to enable a foreign...