Sutton v. Heinzle
| Decision Date | 07 July 1911 |
| Docket Number | 17,057 |
| Citation | 85 Kan. 332,116 P. 614 |
| Parties | WILLIAM B. SUTTON, Appellee, v. MARTIN HEINZLE, Individually and as Next Friend, etc., et al., Appellees, and RICHARD J. SMITH, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1911.
OPINION DENYING A REHEARING.
Appeal from Wyandotte court of common pleas. Opinion denying a rehearing, filed July 7, 1911. (For original opinion see 84 Kan. 756.)
Petition rehearing denied.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
FOREIGN STATUTES--Adopted by this State--When Construction of by Foreign Court Not Binding on Courts of this State. The rule that courts in construing a statute adopted from another state are bound by previous decisions as to its effect rendered by the court of last resort of that state is subject to this exception among others: The decision of the court of the other state will not prevail over a contrary decision previously rendered by the supreme court of the adopting state, arising upon a statute substantially similar so far as relates to the question involved, and resulting from a different view of some general principle of law or public policy.
Richard J. Smith, A. E. Dempsey, and E. E. Naber, for the appellant.
William B. Sutton, and William B. Sutton, jr., for William B. Sutton, appellee.
In a petition for rehearing it is urged that notwithstanding the decision in B. & M. R. Rld. Co. v. Thompson, 31 Kan. 180, we should hold that jurisdiction over an indebtedness between nonresidents can not be obtained by serving garnishment process upon the creditor in this state. The argument is made that our present garnishment law, passed in 1889, was adopted from Wisconsin; that prior to its adoption the supreme court of Wisconsin had held that no jurisdiction can be obtained thereunder over personal property situated outside of the state; and that this decision was a construction of the statute which must be presumed to have been adopted by the legislature along with the statute itself.
The Wisconsin case referred to (Bates v. The Chicago Milwaukee & St. Paul R'y Co., Garnishee, etc., 60 Wis. 296, 19 N.W. 72) had reference to tangible personal property, and a distinction might be made upon that ground. That court has followed the same rule with respect to a debt owing to a garnishee, but in a decision rendered since 1889. (Morawetz v. Sun Insurance Office, 96 Wis. 175, 71 N.W. 109.) We prefer, however, to base our judgment upon another proposition. The rule as to the binding effect of a decision rendered prior to the adoption of a statute is not absolute. It does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial