Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Deer

Decision Date02 January 1906
Docket NumberNo. 164,164
CitationLouisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Deer, 200 U.S. 176, 26 S.Ct. 207, 50 L.Ed. 426 (1906)
PartiesLOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. F. E. DEER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr.George W. Jones for plaintiff in error.

No counsel for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action to recover a debt admitted to have been due to the plaintiff, the defendant in error. But it was agreed in the trial court that a suit was brought by one Brock against the plaintiff in Florida, in which the railroad company, the present plaintiff in error, was summoned as garnishee, judgment was recovered against the latter as such for the sum now in suit, and the sum paid by it into court, all before the present suit was begun. The proceedings in Florida were strictly in accordance with the laws of that state. The railroad company did business there, and was permanently liable to service and suit, and the defendant, the present defendant in error, was notified by such publication as the statutes of Florida prescribed. He was not, however, a resident of the state, but lived in Alabama, and the supreme court of the latter state affirmed a judgment in his favor on the ground that the Florida court had no jurisdiction to render the judgment relied on as a defense. 142 Ala. ——, 40 South. 1037.

Whatever doubts may have been felt when this case was decided below are disposed of by the recent decision in Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215, ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
63 cases
  • Shaffer v. Heitner
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1977
    ...though Balk himself was not subject to the juris- diction of a Maryland tribunal.18 See also, e. g., Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Deer, 200 U.S. 176, 26 S.Ct. 207, 50 L.Ed. 426 (1906); Steele v. G. D. Searle & Co., 483 F.2d 339 (CA5 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 958, 94 S.Ct. 1486, 39 L.Ed.2d ......
  • Armour Fertilizer Works v. Sanders
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 1, 1933
    ...is established in Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215, 25 S. Ct. 625, 49 L. Ed. 1023, 3 Ann. Cas. 1084, and Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Deer, 200 U. S. 176, 26 S. Ct. 207, 50 L. Ed. 426. Turning to the older cases in Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Pet. 136, 10 L. Ed. 95, a suit upon a note was fil......
  • State ex rel. Fielder v. Kirkwood
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1940
    ... ... undertaken to bring the defendant Belt Railway Company of ... Chicago before the Circuit Court of the City of St ... Balk, 198 ... U.S. 215, 49 L.Ed. 1023; L. & N. Railroad Co. v ... Deer, 200 U.S. 176, 50 L.Ed. 426; Davis v. C., ... ...
  • Rosenthal v. Maletz
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 8, 1948
    ...204 Mass. 327, 329, 90 N.E. 538;National Shawmut Bank v. Waterville, 285 Mass. 252, 253, 189 N.E. 92;Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Deer, 200 U.S. 176, 26 S.Ct. 207, 50 L.Ed. 426;Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Hostetter, 240 U.S. 620, 624, 36 S.Ct. 475, 60 L.Ed. 829;St. Louis, Brownsville & M......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Personal Jurisdiction and the Fairness Factor(s)
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 72-4, 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...owned property in Iowa could be sued in Iowa over an accident that occurred in Illinois); Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., v. F.E. Deer, 200 U.S. 176 (1906) (holding that a court can exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over a debt, i.e., intangible property, that travels with the debtor); Ha......