First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Pomona Machinery Co., No. 10332

CourtSupreme Court of Arizona
Writing for the CourtCAMERON; STRUCKMEYER
Citation486 P.2d 184,107 Ariz. 286
Docket NumberNo. 10332
Decision Date25 June 1971
PartiesFIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a national banking association, Appellant, v. POMONA MACHINERY CO., a sole proprietorship, et al., Appellees.

Page 184

486 P.2d 184
107 Ariz. 286
FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a national banking association, Appellant,
v.
POMONA MACHINERY CO., a sole proprietorship, et al., Appellees.
No. 10332.
Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division.
June 25, 1971.

[107 Ariz. 287]

Page 185

Rawlins, Ellis, Burrus & Kiewit by Michael S. Milroy and Michael V. Mulchay, Phoenix, for appellant.

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon by Jon L. Kyl and Charles E. Jones, Phoenix, for appellees.

CAMERON, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and quashing the writ of garnishment issued therein. We are called upon to determine:

1. Whether a garnishment can give the court jurisdiction as to the amount garnisheed in an action involving a foreign plaintiff, defendant, and debt.

2. Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens should apply.

3. Whether the Arizona garnishment statute is unconstitutional as applied to non-wage earner debts.

[107 Ariz. 288]

Page 186

The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. The First National Bank and Trust Company, a national banking association with its principal place of business in the State of California, filed this action in Maricopa County Superior Court to collect monies due under the terms of a promissory note given by Pomona Machinery Company, a California sole proprietorship, and guaranteed in writing by Edward D. Testo, the sole proprietor, and his wife, both California residents. At the same time the action was filed, and in aid thereof, there was issued a writ of garnishment directed to the Arizona Bank. Summons and copies of the complaint were served on the defendants by the Sheriff's Office of Los Angeles County pursuant to Rule 4(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. The bank by answer admitted an indebtedness to both Pomona and Testos, but in an amount less than the amount allegedly due on the note.

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter, insufficiency of process, lack of jurisdiction, over the persons, and failure to state a claim. The motion was granted and appellant herein asserts error. Appellee on appeal counters that even if jurisdiction existed it should not have been exercised as the prejudgment garnishment statute is unconstitutional.

JURISDICTION

We are first concerned with the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. Jurisdiction over the subject matter--the underlying obligation--(i.e., the debt as defined in § 12--1571, subsec. A, par. 2, A.R.S.) is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the particular proceedings belong, i.e., the abstract question. Arizona Public Service Co. v. Southern Union Gas Co., 76 Ariz. 373, 265 P.2d 435 (1953); Tube City Min. & Mill Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1915). The Superior Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and therefore could issue the writ of garnishment. Act. 6, § 6, Arizona Constitution, A.R.S., § 12--123, subsec. B; 6 Am.Jur.2d, Attachment & Garnishment, § 17, p. 573.

Having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the lawsuit does not mean, however, that the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this case. Pursuant to filing the complaint, summons was personally served on both defendants in California pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. As pertinent hereto, Rule 4(e)(1) reads:

'* * * When a defendant is a nonresident of the state * * * summons shall be issued as in other cases and service may be made in accordance with Sections 4(e)(2) or 4(e)(3) of this Rule.'

Rule 4(e)(2) is, of course, the longarm rule. However, not all service accomplished pursuant thereto involves in personam longarm jurisdiction or the minimum contacts theory embodied therein, and absent reasons for application of longarm personal jurisdiction (See Liston v. Butler, 4 Ariz.App. 460, 421 P.2d 542 (1967) and Phillips v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., 100 Ariz. 251, 413 P.2d 732 (1966)), the rule in Arizona is that there must be personal service within the State to support in personam jurisdiction and judgment:

'In the landmark case of Pennoyer v. Neff (5 Otto 714), 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565, 569, the U.S....

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co., No. 2005-332-M.P.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • May 9, 2008
    ...case law. See Crowson v. Sealaska Corp., 705 P.2d 905, 907-08 (Alaska 1985); First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Pomona Machinery Co., 107 Ariz. 286, 486 P.2d 184, 188 (1971); Running v. Southwest Freight Lines, Inc., 227 Ark. 839, 303 S.W.2d 578, 580-81 (1957); Price v. Atchison, T. & S.F. ......
  • Westerby v. Johns-Manville Corp., 681 (671)
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 16, 1982
    ...Georgia Railway Co. v. Phillips, 286 Ala. 365, 240 So.2d 118 (1970); Arizona: First National Bank and Trust Co. v. Pomona Machinery Co., 107 Ariz. 286, 486 P.2d 184 (1971); Arkansas: Harvey v. Eastman Kodak Co., 271 Ark. 783, 610 S.W.2d 582 (1981); Running v. Southwest Freight Lines, Inc., ......
  • In re Marriage of Dorman, No. 2 CA-CV 99-0113.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • August 31, 2000
    ...Estes v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 515, 517, 672 P.2d 180, 182 (1983), quoting First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Pomona Machinery Co., 107 Ariz. 286, 288, 486 P.2d 184, 186 (1971). The trial court is vested with subject matter jurisdiction over domestic relations matters, including child cust......
  • Huggins v. Deinhard, No. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • October 19, 1982
    ...the trial court acquired quasi in rem jurisdiction over the bank account. First National Bank & Trust Company v. Pomona Machinery Co., 107 Ariz. 286, 486 P.2d 184 We find that Shaffer did not prevent the trial court from asserting quasi in rem jurisdiction over the bank account. The Califor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co., No. 2005-332-M.P.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • May 9, 2008
    ...case law. See Crowson v. Sealaska Corp., 705 P.2d 905, 907-08 (Alaska 1985); First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Pomona Machinery Co., 107 Ariz. 286, 486 P.2d 184, 188 (1971); Running v. Southwest Freight Lines, Inc., 227 Ark. 839, 303 S.W.2d 578, 580-81 (1957); Price v. Atchison, T. & S.F. ......
  • Westerby v. Johns-Manville Corp., 681 (671)
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 16, 1982
    ...Georgia Railway Co. v. Phillips, 286 Ala. 365, 240 So.2d 118 (1970); Arizona: First National Bank and Trust Co. v. Pomona Machinery Co., 107 Ariz. 286, 486 P.2d 184 (1971); Arkansas: Harvey v. Eastman Kodak Co., 271 Ark. 783, 610 S.W.2d 582 (1981); Running v. Southwest Freight Lines, Inc., ......
  • In re Marriage of Dorman, No. 2 CA-CV 99-0113.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • August 31, 2000
    ...Estes v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz. 515, 517, 672 P.2d 180, 182 (1983), quoting First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Pomona Machinery Co., 107 Ariz. 286, 288, 486 P.2d 184, 186 (1971). The trial court is vested with subject matter jurisdiction over domestic relations matters, including child cust......
  • Huggins v. Deinhard, No. 1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • October 19, 1982
    ...the trial court acquired quasi in rem jurisdiction over the bank account. First National Bank & Trust Company v. Pomona Machinery Co., 107 Ariz. 286, 486 P.2d 184 We find that Shaffer did not prevent the trial court from asserting quasi in rem jurisdiction over the bank account. The Califor......
  • 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