Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Steiner

• Decision Date: 18 December 1900
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. STEINER ET AL. [1]

30 So. 741

128 Ala. 353

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. STEINER ET AL. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 18, 1900

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.

Action by Steiner & Lobman against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Attachment proceeding against Forrester & Sons, who were nonresidents and sought to subject by garnishment against the railroad company a debt due by it to the defendants in attachment. The garnishee answered that it was a foreign corporation, and was indebted to the defendants, who were residents of the state of Florida, upon a contract made and to be performed in that state. The answer also alleged that garnishment proceedings had been instituted and served upon appellant in the courts of Florida to subject the same indebtedness, and prayed the judgment of the court as to whether it had jurisdiction to subject said indebtedness. After the service of the garnishment, defendants accepted service of the notice of the attachment, and voluntarily appeared in said cause, and judgment nil dicit was rendered against them in favor of appellees. On motion of the plaintiffs, judgment was also rendered against the garnishee.

Thos G. & Chas. P. Jones and Marks & Sayre, for appellant.

Lomax Crum & Weil, for appellees.

SHARPE J.

In Railroad Co. v. Dooley, 78 Ala. 524, this court held that a debt due by a foreign corporation, which was neither made nor in any part to be performed in this state, was not subject to garnishment here. The ground of the decision was primarily, that the suit was in the nature of a proceeding in rem, and the court lacked power to reach and subject the debt, or to make any binding disposition of it. For this reason it was further considered that the court could not, by virtue of garnishment process in such case, acquire jurisdiction to render judgment against the defendant in the original suit, who was a nonresident, and was not otherwise served. The doctrine so declared has been ever since adhered to. Railroad Co. v. Chumley, 92 Ala. 317, 9 So. 286; Railroad Co. v. Nash, 118 Ala. 477, 23 So. 825, 41 L. R. A. 331, 72 Am. St. Rep. 181. Such lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter is fatal to the garnishment suit without regard to whether jurisdiction over the defendant is obtained. In Railroad Co. v. Chumley, supra, Chumley brought suit in Alabama against the railroad company,...