Griffith v. Langsdale

• Decision Date: 22 March 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 733,53 Ark. 71
• Parties: GRIFFITH v. LANGSDALE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

13 S.W. 733

53 Ark. 71

GRIFFITH v. LANGSDALE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 22, 1890

APPEAL from Miller Circuit Court in Chancery, C. E. MITCHEL, Judge.

In October, 1887, Langsdale, a resident of Texas, brought suit against Griffith, a resident of Arkansas, in a justice's court in Texas on an account for $ 106.42. A non-resident citation addressed to Griffith was issued and returned as served in Miller county, Arkansas. A writ of garnishment was issued against the St. Louis, Arkansas and Texas Railway Co. a company residing in Texas, and returned served. On November 28, 1887, a personal judgment was rendered against Griffith for the amount of the indebtedness. On February 13, 1888, the railway company answered the garnishment, admitting an indebtedness to Griffith of $ 59.40 for personal services. On February 14, 1888, Griffith sued Langsdale in Miller circuit court to restrain him from prosecuting the garnishment proceeding in the Texas court, claiming that defendant was endeavoring to defraud him of his constitutional exemptions. A temporary injunction was granted. Pending this suit judgment was rendered in the Texas court in the garnishment proceeding on February 27, 1888, for $ 59.40, and the money paid by the garnishee. These facts were set up in a supplemental complaint. Upon the hearing the complaint was dismissed and plaintiff appealed.

Affirmed.

Arnold & Cook for appellant.

1. Judgments obtained by fraud, accident, mistake or surprise will be enjoined. High on Inj., secs. 109, 118. The court should have enjoined appellee perpetually from attempting to enforce his judgment. In such cases, courts of equity do not attempt to direct or control the foreign court, but act by decree in personam upon the person of the creditor. 3 Vesey Jr., 183; 6 Cranch, 148; 40 Ga. 206; 4 Allen, 545; 45 Ark 178; Story, Eq. Jur., sec. 899. The judgment in the Texas court without personal service was a nullity. 45 Ark. 178.

2. Under circumstances like these, the intention to evade the exemption laws is presumed. 28 Am. Rep., 454.

Injunction is the proper remedy to prevent a creditor from subjecting exempt property in a foreign State to the payment of a debt, 25 Ohio St. 516; 47 Md. 203; 107 Ind. 490.

If a creditor disregards an injunction and proceeds in a foreign jurisdiction to collect exempt earnings or sell exempt property, he may not only be punished for contempt, but is liable for the amount so collected and judgment may be given for it in the injunction suit. 30 N.W. 36; 69 Iowa 725; Pom. Eq., sec. 181, note, 237, 1410.

F. D. Cook for appellee.

OPINION

COCKRILL, C. J.

A creditor, who attempts to evade the exemption laws of his State by resort to attachment proceedings in the court of another State against the property of a debtor who is a resident of the State of the creditor's domicile, may be enjoined by the courts of the latter State from prosecuting his suit in the foreign jurisdiction. Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107, 33 L.Ed. 538, 10 S.Ct. 269; Keyser v. Rice, 47 Md. 203; Snook v. Snetzer, 25 Ohio St. 516; Wilson v. Joseph, 107 Ind. 490, 8 N.E. 616; Hager v. Adams, 70 Iowa 746, 30 N.W. 36.

In restraining the proceeding, the court acts, not upon the court of foreign jurisdiction, but upon the person of the creditor. Pickett v. Ferguson, 45 Ark. 177. The equitable jurisdiction in this class of cases arises from the creditor's effort to evade the law of the State of his domicile. When, therefore, the debtor and creditor are domiciled in different States, and the creditor proceeds by attachment in the courts of the State of his domicile against the property of his debtor, there is no cause for the interference by injunction on the part of the courts of the debtor's domicile, even though the...