Foley v. Shriver
| Decision Date | 25 March 1886 |
| Citation | 81 Va. 568 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | FOLEY, & C., v. SHRIVER, & C. |
Appeal from decree of circuit court of Elizabeth City county rendered August 8th, 1883, in a suit by foreign attachment in equity, wherein Daniel J. Foley, Bro. & Co. are plaintiffs, and Shriver Bros. and " The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers," a corporation under an act of congress, are the defendants. The decree was against the complainants, who obtained an appeal to this court.
Opinion states the case.
Harmanson & Heath, for the appellants.
Thomas Tabb, for the appellees.
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Elizabeth City county rendered on the 8th day of August, 1883.
On the 25th day of January, 1883, the appellants brought their suit, which is a foreign attachment in equity, against the appellees, who are non-residents of the State of Virginia, and against " The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers," a corporation incorporated by an act of congress. The object of the suit was to recover of the non-resident defendant a debt of $3,928.23, and to garnishee in the hands of the said " The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers" whatever money it owed to the non-resident defendant. The proceedings were had under the 11th sec., ch. 148, V. C. Affidavit having been made and filed, process was served on the secretary and governor of the said " The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers."
The defendant having made an assignment, the assignee appeared and pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court that the said " The National Home for Disabled Volunteers" did not reside within the said county, and that the court had no jurisdiction in the premises; and he answered and subsequently filed his petition in the cause.
The facts agreed were--first, that the defendant, " The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers," is indebted to Shriver in the sum of $1,485.55. Secondly, that the defendant, " The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers," acquired certain real estate which was situated in the county of Elizabeth City, in the State of Virginia, under an act of the legislature of Virginia, approved July 11th, 1870, upon which its buildings and improvements now are, and upon which it now resides and does its business. Thirdly, that the said " The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers" is a corporation created by the congress of the United States of America, and is supported by appropriations made by the said congress. The cause was submitted to the judge of the circuit court for decree to be pronounced in vacation. The said judge of the said court being of opinion that the defendant, " The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers," is a non-resident corporation, and not within the jurisdiction of that court, abated the attachment and dismissed the bill. Whereupon the plaintiffs appealed.
The chief question for the consideration of this court is, whether the said " The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers" is subject to the jurisdiction of the circuit court of Elizabeth City county. The land upon which this corporation stands was purchased by the United States government, by the consent of the legislature of Virginia, under the authority of the seventeenth section of the eighth clause of the first article of the Constitution of the United states.
The act of cession, which is to be found at page 479, Acts of 1869-'70, declares in the preamble that the board of managers of the National Asylum for Disabled Soldiers desired, for stated reasons, to locate a branch of the said asylum within the borders of this State, and that the necessary expenditures could be made for buildings and other improvements by said board of managers only upon property under the control of the national government. That the consent of the legislature was given; and such jurisdiction was ceded to the United States over this tract as is within the contemplation of the seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, the State assuming such concurrent jurisdiction with the United States for the execution of process, & c., as may not be incompatible with the consent hereby given.
The eighth section, seventeenth clause, provides that congress shall have power " to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings."
It is contended by the appellant that the State has reserved concurrent jurisdiction over this territory, and that the same is therefore within the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the State exercising jurisdiction over the county wherein the said territory is situated. The title to this property has been acquired by purchase by the United States with the consent of the legislature of Virginia, and such power of exclusive legislation is ceded by the State, as is provided for by the first article, eighth section of the Constitution of the United States. The State reserved such right to serve process, & c., as might be consistent with the exclusive jurisdiction of congress over the ceded territory.
Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. S. C. Rep., p. 532.
" The reservation which has usually accompanied the consent of the States that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Londeree
...National Bank, 125 Tenn. 98, 140 S.W. 747, Administration of Estates; In re Kernan, 247 App.Div. 664, 288 N.Y.S. 329, Custody; Foley v. Shriver, 81 Va. 568, Attachment Proceedings; Heirich v. Howe, 50 N.M. 90, 171 P.2d 312, Adoptions; In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 10 S.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500, ......
-
Belt Line Railroad v. Parker
...done. A State court has sought to enforce in a transitory action a common law right which originated there, and this it may do. Foley Shriver, 81 Va. 568, is relied upon as establishing a different rule. The court there merely decided that "The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers"......
-
Norfolk & P. B. L. R. Co v. Parker
...done. A state court has sought to enforce in a transitory action a common-law right which originated there, and this it may do. Foley v. Shriver, 81 Va. 568, is relied upon as establishing a different rule. The court there merely decided that "The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldie......
-
Rothfels v. Southworth
...19, 166 N.W. 496; Anderson v. Chicago & N. W. RR, 102 Neb. 578, 168 N.W. 196; Bank of Phoebus v. Bryum, 110 Va. 708, 67 S.E. 349; Foley v. Shriver, 81 Va. 568; State v. Morris, 76 N.J.L. 222, 68 A. 1103; Miller v. Hickory Groves School Board, 162 Kan. 528, 178 P.2d 214; State ex rel. Parker......
-
Exclusive Legislation Does Not Mean Exclusive Jurisdiction-state-court Jurisdiction Over Civil Actions Arising Upon Federal Enclaves
...v. Clary, 8 Mass. 72 (1811) (holding that the Massachusetts liquor-license law did not apply on the enclave); and Foley v. Shriver, 81 Va. 568 (1886) (holding that the state court could not garnish property in the hands of U.S. officers on a federal enclave). Cases Addressing Whether Federa......