LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
DEER

U.S. | 1906-01-02
No. 164
200 U.S. 176 Supreme Court of the United States (1906) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 50 L. Ed. 426 · 26 S. Ct. 207 · SCDB 1905-058 · 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1465
Cited by 34 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company sought to recover a debt from Deer, who defended based on a judgment rendered against the railroad as a garnishee in Florida state court. The Supreme Court held that the Florida court had jurisdiction to render the garnishee judgment because the railroad company was permanently present in Florida and subject to service of process there, establishing that a state court may exercise jurisdiction over a garnishee defendant properly served within its borders regardless of the defendant's residence in another state.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to recover a debt admitted to have ¡b^en 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. lie was not, however, a resident of the State, but lived in Alabama, and the Supreme Court of the latter State affirmed a judgment in bis favor on the ground that the Florida court had no jurisdiction to render the judgment relied on as a defense.

.-.Whatever doubts may have been felt when this case was décided below are disposed of by the recent decision in Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215. There the garnishee was only temporarily present' in Maryland, where the first judgment was rendered, and the defendant in that judgment was absent from the State, and served only as the defendant in error was served in Florida. Yet the Maryland judgment was held valid; and a decision by the Supreme Court of North Carolina denying the jurisdiction of the Maryland court was reversed. In the present case the railroad company was permanently present in the State where it was served.- In view of the full and recent discussion in Harris v. Balk we think it unnecessary to say more.

Judgment reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1977)
    …by Pennoyer, Epstein was then entitled to proceed against that debt to vindicate his claim against Balk, even though Balk himself was not subject to the jurisdiction [*201] of a Maryland tribunal.18 See also, e. g., Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Deer, 200 U. S. 176 (1906); Steele v. G. D. Searle & Co., 483 F. 2d 339 (CA5 1973), cert. denied, 416 U. S. 958 (1974). Pennoyer itself recognized that its rigid categories, even as blurred by the kind of action typified by Harris, could not accommodate some necessar…
  • Huron Holding Corp. v. Lincoln Mine Operating Co., 312 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1941)
    …N. E. 859; Fithian v. New York & Erie R. Co., 31 Pa. 114. And compare McNish v. Burch, 49 S. D. 215; 207 N. W. 85, with Hardwick v. Harris, 22 N. M. 394; 163 P. 253. E. g., Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215, 222; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Deer, 200 U. S. 176, 178; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Hostetter, 240 U. S. 620. 1 Stat. 122, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 687. And see note 17, infra. Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U. S. 268, 275. Cf. United States v. Klein, 303 U. S. 276, 281-282. Pennoyer…
  • Sanders v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 292 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1934)
    …s is not impounded till the compulsion of judgment and execution has caused it to be paid. Then, but not before, the garnishee will have protection against the hazard of conflicting claims. Cf. Harris v. Balk, supra; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Deer, 200 U.S. 176; B. & O. R. Co. v. Hostetter, 240 U.S. 620. What has been written does not go beyond the law as declared in Illinois. The fact is not ignored that there are other jurisdictions in which the process of gamishment [*208] receives a different meaning…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw