Isaac Harris v. Balk

Citation3 Ann. Cas. 1084,25 S.Ct. 625,198 U.S. 215,49 L.Ed. 1023
Decision Date08 May 1905
Docket NumberNo. 191,191
PartiesISAAC N. HARRIS, Plff. in Err. , v. B. BALK
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

The plaintiff in error brings the case here in order to review the judgment of the supreme court of North Carolina, affirming a judgment of a lower court against him for $180, with interest, as stated therein. The case has been several times before the supreme court of that state, and is reported in 122 N. C. 64, 45 L. R. A. 257, 30 S. E. 318, again, 124 N. C. 467, 45 L. R. A. 260, 70 Am. St. Rep. 606, 32 S. E. 799. The opinion delivered at the time of entering the judgment now under review is to be found in 130 N. C. 381, 41 N. E. 940. And see, also, 132 N. C. 10, 43 S. E. 477.

The facts are as follows: The plaintiff in error, Harris, was a resident of North Carolina at the time of the commencement of this action, in 1896, and prior to that time was indebted to the defendant in error, Balk, also a resident of North Carolina, in the sum of $180, for money borrowed from Balk by Harris during the year 1896, which Harris verbally promised to repay, but there was no written evidence of the obligation. During the year above mentioned one Jacob Epstein, a resident of Baltimore, in the state of Maryland, asserted that Balk was indebted to him in the sum of over $300. In August, 1896, Harris visited Baltimore for the purpose of purchasing merchandise, and while he was in that city temporarily on August 6, 1896, Epstein caused to be issued out of a proper court in Baltimore a foreign or nonresident writ of attachment against Balk, attaching the debt due Balk from Harris, which writ the sheriff at Baltimore laid in the hands of Harris, with a summons to appear in the court at a day named. With that attachment, a writ of summons and a short declaration against Balk (as provided by the Maryland statute) were also delivered to the sheriff, and by him set up at the courthouse door, as required by the law of Maryland. Before the return day of the attachment writ Harris left Baltimore, and returned to his home in North Carolina. He did not contest the garnishee process, which was issued to garnish the debt which Harris owed Balk. After his return Harris made an affidavit on August 11, 1896, that he owed Balk $180, and stated that the amount had been attached by Epstein, of Baltimore, and by his counsel in the Maryland proceeding Harris consented therein to an order of condemnation against him as such garnishee for $180, the amount of his debt to Balk. Judgment was thereafter entered against the garnishee, and in favor of the plaintiff, Epstein, for $180. After the entry of the garnishee judgment, condemning the $180 in the hands of the garnishee, Harris paid the amount of the judgment to one Warren, an attorney of Epstein, residing in North Carolina. On August 11, 1896, Balk commenced an action against Harris before a justice of the peace in North Carolina, to recover the $180 which he averred Harris owed him. The plaintiff in error, by way of answer to the suit, pleaded in bar the recovery of the Maryland judgment and his payment thereof, and contended that it was conclusive against the defendant in error in this action, because that judgment was a valid judgment in Maryland, and was therefore entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of North Carolina. This contention was not allowed by the trial court, and judgment was accordingly entered against Harris for the amount of his indebtedness to Balk, and that judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of North Carolina. The ground of such judgment was that the Maryland court obtained no jurisdiction to attach or garnish the debt due from Harris to Balk, because Harris was but temporarily in the state, and the situs of the debt was in North Carolina.

Messrs. George W. S. Musgrave and Sylvan Hayes Lauchheimer for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 217-219 intentionally omitted] Mr. John H. Small for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 219-221 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

The state court of North Carolina has refused to give any effect in this action to the Maryland judgment; and the Federal question is whether it did not thereby refuse the full faith and credit to such judgment which is required by the Federal Constitution. If the Maryland court had jurisdiction to award it, the judgment is valid and entitled to the same full faith and credit in North Carolina that it has in Maryland as a valid domestic judgment.

The defendant in error contends that the Maryland court obtained no jurisdiction to award the judgment of condemnation, because the garnishee, although at the time in the state of Maryland, and personally served with process therein, was a nonresident of that state, only casually or temporarily within its boundaries; that the situs of the debt due from Harris, the garnishee, to the defendant in error herein, was in North Carolina, and did not accompany Harris to Maryland; that, consequently, Harris, though within the state of Maryland, had not possession of any property of Balk, and the Maryland state court therefore obtained no jurisdiction over any property of Balk in the attachment proceedings, and the consent of Harris to the entry of the judgment was immaterial. The plaintiff in error, on the contrary, insists that, though the garnishee were but temporarily in Maryland, yet the laws of that state provide for an attachment of this nature if the debtor, the garnishee, is found in the state, and the court obtains jurisdiction over him by the service of process therein; that the judgment, condemning the debt from Harris to Balk, was a valid judgment, provided Balk could himself have sued Harris for the debt in Maryland. This, it is asserted, he could have done, and the judgment was therefore entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of North Carolina.

The cases holding that the state court obtains no jurisdiction over the garnishee if he be but temporarily within the state proceed upon the theory that the situs of the debt is at the domicil either of the creditor or of the debtor, and that it does not follow the debtor in his casual or temporary journey into another state, and the garnishee has no possession of any property or credit of the principal debtor in the foreign state.

We regard the contention of the plaintiff in error as the correct one. The authorities in the various state courts upon this question are not at all in harmony. They have been collected by counsel, and will be found in their respective briefs, and it is not necessary to here enlarge upon them.

Attachment is the creature of the local law; that is, unless there is a law of the state providing for and permitting the attachment, it cannot be levied there. If there be a law of the state providing for the attachment of the debt, then, if the garnishee be found in that state, and process be personally served upon him therein, we think the court thereby acquires jurisdiction over him, and can garnish the debt due from him to the debtor of the plaintiff, and condemn it, provided the garnishee could himself be sued by his creditor in that state. We do not see how the question of jurisdiction vel non can properly be made to depend upon the so-called original situs of the debt, or upon the character of the stay of the garnishee, whether temporary or permanent, in the state where the attachment is issued. Power over the person of the garnishee confers jurisdiction on the courts of the state where the writ issues. Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189-206, 47 L. ed. 439-445, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277. If, while temporarily there, his creditor might sue him there and recover the debt, then he is liable to process of garnishment, no matter where the situs of the debt was originally. We do not see the materiality of the expression 'situs of the debt,' when used in connection with attachment proceedings. If by situs is meant the place of the creation of the debt, that fact is immaterial. If it be meant that the obligation to pay the debt can only be enforced at the situs thus fixed, we think it plainly untrue. The obligation of the debtor to pay his debt clings to and accompanies him wherever he goes. He is as much bound to pay his debt in a foreign state when therein sued upon his obligation by his creditor, as he was in the state where the debt was contracted. We speak of ordinary debts, such as the one in this case. It would be no defense to such suit for the debtor to plead that he was only in the foreign state casually or temporarily. His obligation to pay would be the same whether he was there in that way or with an intention to remain. It is nothing but the obligation to pay which is garnished or attached. This obligation can be enforced by the courts of the foreign state after personal service of process therein, just as well as by the courts of the domicil of the debtor. If the debtor leave the foreign state without appearing, a judgment by default may be entered, upon which execution may issue, or the judgment may be sued upon in any other state where the debtor might be found. In such case the situs is unimportant. It is not a question of possession in the foreign state, for possession cannot be taken of a debt or of the obligation to pay it, as tangible property might be taken possession of. Notice to the debtor (garnishee) of the commencement of the suit, and notice not to pay to his creditor, is all that can be given, whether the garnishee be a mere casual and temporary comer, or a resident of the state where the attachment is laid. His obligation to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
415 cases
  • Abbit v. Bernier
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • December 24, 1974
    ...(1885) with James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 257, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 15, 225 N.E.2d 741, 745 (1967). See also, Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 222, 25 S.Ct. 625, 49 L.Ed. 1023 (1905). 12 In deciding whether or not to draft a successor to § 52-369, however, the Connecticut legislature may wish to......
  • Turner v. Evers
    • United States
    • United States Superior Court (California)
    • January 3, 1973
    ...challenged. To paraphrase Judge Friendly, the argument of unconstitutionality is 'unpersuasive so long as Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 25 S.Ct. 625, 49 L.Ed. 1023 (1905) stands.' (Minichiello v. Rosenberg, Supra, 410 F.2d at p. 118.) The New York cases have referred to the policy obligatio......
  • State v. Western Union Fin. Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • June 3, 2009
    ...of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum State"). The hoary doctrine 208 P.3d 222 of Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 25 S.Ct. 625, 49 L.Ed. 1023 (1905), was thus left intact. Harris arose out of a debt from Harris to Balk; Balk in turn owed money to Epstein. Ha......
  • Atkinson v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 5, 1957
    ...any, of a nonresident claimant thereto without personal jurisdiction over the nonresident. Garnishment proceedings (Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 25 S.Ct. 625, 49 L.Ed. 1023) and escheat proceedings (Standard Oil Co. v. State of New Jersey, 341 U.S. 428, 71 S.Ct. 822, 95 L.Ed. 1078; Securit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Recent Developments In Pre-Judgment Attachments In New York, Maritime And Otherwise
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 20, 2014
    ...courts have held that "the obligation of the debtor...clings to and accompanies him wherever he goes." Id. at 315 (citing Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215 (1905) (overruled on other grounds). Thus, if a garnishee owing money to the defendant can be served in New York, that debt can be attached ......
7 books & journal articles
  • Personal Jurisdiction and Choice of Law
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-3, March 2013
    • March 1, 2013
    ...with the regulatory frameworks of sister states. 91 The problem with quasi-in-rem jurisdiction is that the property 84. Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 222 (1905) (rejecting defendant’s argument that a garnishee has no possession of the debtor’s property, and holding that “[p]ower over the pe......
  • Personal Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Pretrial Practice. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 5, 2013
    ...often in the context of collecting a judgment against property completely unrelated to the underlying dispute. [See, e.g., Harris v. Balk , 198 US 215 (1905).] Here again, the judgment is limited to the property supporting jurisdiction, and does not impose personal liability on the owner. [......
  • This Ain't the Texas Two Step Folks: Disharmony, Confusion, and the Unfair Nature of Personal Jurisdiction Analysis in the Fifth Circuit
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 37-3, May 2009
    • May 1, 2009
    ...process. His amenability to suit would travel with the holder of the chattel. We recently abandoned the outworn rule of Harris v. Balk , 198 U.S. 215 (1905), that the interest of a creditor in a debt could be extinguished or otherwise affected by any state having transitory jurisdiction ove......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Pretrial Practice. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • May 5, 2013
    ...SW3d 635, 638 (Tex 2004), §15:155 Harris County Hosp. Dist. v. Tomball Reg’l Hosp. , 283 SW3d 838, 842 (Tex 2009), §6:167 Harris v. Balk , 198 US 215 (1905), §8:02 Harris v. Galveston Co ., 799 SW2d 766 (TexApp — Houston [14th Dist] 1990, writ denied), §3:100 Harris v. Schoults , 877 SW2d 8......
  • 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