Watson v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.

Adams, J. It was shown in the suit prosecuted in Yirginia that the plaintiff in this action was the principal debtor of the Fleishman-Morris Company, a mercantile concern in the city of Richmond, and was not a resident of that State. He was a resident of North Carolina and was served with summons by publication. The defendant, a corporation both of Yirginia and of North Carolina, haying its principal office in Norfolk, was served personally. Watson, the plaintiff herein, had knowledge of the proceedings in the Yirginia court, but did not appear or set up any defense. The railway company resisted the attachment and refused to pay, the creditor’s claim until it should be finally determined by a valid judgment. The Fleishman-Morris Company recovered judgment and the railway company’s indebtedness to the plaintiff was condemned and applied under the attachment in payment or part payment of the judgment. This appeal is controlled by the law as stated in Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S., 710, 43 L. Ed., 1144. It appeared in that case that the railway company was a corporation duly organized under the laws of the States of Illinois and Iowa, doing business in the State of Kansas. Sturm brought suit in Kansas against the railway company to recover $140 for wages and recovered judgment for this amount with interest and costs. A. H. Willard had previously commenced an action against Sturm in a justice’s court in Iowa to recover $78.63 with interest, had sued out a writ of attachment and garnishment, and had garnished the railway company which was indebted to Sturm at that time in the sum of $77.17 for wages. Sturm contended that his wages were exempt under the laws of Kansas and were not subject to proceedings in garnishment. Notwithstanding the garnishment in Iowa, Sturm recovered judgment against the railway company in Kansas and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment, holding the general rule of law to be that for the purpose of founding administra *474 tion all simple contract debts are assets at the domicile of the debtor; that exemption laws are not a part of the contract but of the remedy, subject to the law of the forum; that jurisdiction in garnishment of a debt due a nonresident creditor may be acquired without service on him except by publication; and that full faith and credit must be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. Constitution, Art. IY, sec. 1. In Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S., 215, 49 L. Ed., 1023, the facts were as follows: Harris, a resident of North Carolina, was indebted to Balk, also a resident of North Carolina, in the sum of $180. Balk was indebted to Jacob Epstein of Baltimore in the sum of $300. Harris went to Baltimore to purchase merchandise and Epstein caused to be issued a nonresident writ of attachment against Balk, and attached the amount due Balk from Harris. A writ of summons and a declaration against Balk (as provided by the Maryland statute) were delivered to the sheriff and by him posted at the courthouse door, as required by the law of Maryland. Before the return day Harris came back to North Carolina, and through his counsel in the Maryland proceeding consented to an order of condemnation against him as garnishee of his debt to Balk. Harris paid this amount to Epstein’s counsel. Balk then sued Harris in North Carolina, and Harris pleaded the Maryland judgment in bar. This plea was not allowed, and on appeal the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. In reversing the judgment the Supreme Court of the United States said: “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.” Substantially the same principle was upheld in Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hostetter, 240 U. S., 620, 60 L. Ed., 829. The-wages sought to be recovered in this action are the wag’es that were attached; the law of Virginia provided for the attachment of the debt; the garnishee was a Virginia corporation; the plaintiff could have maintained an action against the defendant in North Carolina or in Virginia; and jurisdiction was acquired by the Virginia court by constructive service on Watson, and by garnishment of the debt due him and by personal service on his employer. Under these conditions the cited cases fully sustain the judgment of the Superior Court. The appellant cites Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Sharitt, 43 Kan., 375, but this case was disapproved in Ry. Co. v. Sturm, supra. Affirmed.