Kennedy v. Agricultural Ins. Co. of Watertown

• Citation: 165 Pa.St. 179,30 A. 724
• Parties: KENNEDY v. AGRICULTURAL INS. CO. OF WATERTOWN.
• Decision Date: 07 January 1895
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

30 A. 724
165 Pa.St. 179

KENNEDY
v.
AGRICULTURAL INS. CO. OF WATERTOWN.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 7, 1895.

Appeal from court of common pleas, Westmoreland county; L. W. Doty, Judge.

Action by M. J. Kennedy against the Agricultural Insurance Company of Watertown, garnishee. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order striking off the judgment, and setting aside the service of an attachment execution, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Williams, Sloan & Griffith, for appellant.

John C. Robinson, for appellee.

STERRETT, C. J. Judgment was obtained in the court below by the plaintiff against Charles Haney, whose dwelling house was covered by a fire insurance policy of the Agricultural Insurance Company of Watertown, N. Y., the defendant above named. Shortly afterwards, the house was totally destroyed by fire, and thereupon the plaintiff issued an attachment execution on the judgment, and caused the same to be served on Frederick Theis, the designated state agent of the insurance company, at his office in the city of Wilkes Barre, Pa. The attachment was served personally on said agent by the sheriff of Luzerne county, who, for that purpose, was specially deputized by the sheriff of Westmoreland county, to whom the same was directed. The writ, in usual form, after reciting the judgment of $400, etc., contains a clause of summons commanding said insurance company, garnishee, to be and appear, etc., on the first Monday of May then next, to show cause, if any it has, why the judgment aforesaid should not be levied of the effects of said defendant in its hands, agreeably to the acts of assembly, etc. Neither the insurance company nor its said agent appeared in person or by attorney, and on August 26th the court being advised of the company's default, gave judgment against it in the form approved by this court in Layman v. Beam, 6 Whart 181, and Jones v. Tracy, 75 Pa. St 417. Subsequently the defendant garnishee moved the court to strike off the lastmentioned judgment, set aside the service of the attachment etc., because: (a) "The court has no jurisdiction over the said garnishee;" (b) "there is no act of assembly authorizing the issuing and serving of such writ or requiring the insurance company to come into this court and make answer;" (c) "the state agent of said insurance company does not reside within the county of Westmoreland;" (d) "a person or corporation not a resident can only be attached in the county where it can be properly served;"...