LABORDE
v.
UBARRI
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.
The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision to dissolve an attachment against property belonging to non-resident heirs in a succession case, holding that attachment is merely an incident to a suit and cannot be maintained unless the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Because the suit against the heirs could not be maintained on the merits—as the property at issue either never belonged to the succession or had been divided among the heirs as personal property for which they bore only personal liability—the attachment against their property had to fall.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is the same suit that has been decided already. Ubarri v. Laborde, ante, p. 168. There is presented here a subordinate question as to the right of the plaintiffs in error, who were also the plaintiffs below, to retain an attachment against property alleged to belong to two non-resident heirs of Pablo Ubarri. The District Court ordered the complaint to be dismissed as to these, heirs and the attachment against any of their property to be dissolved, on the principle that has been laid down more than once by this court, that in the courts of the United States “attachment is but an incident to a suit, and unless the suit can be maintained the attachment must fall.” Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U. S. 794, 796. “Unless the suit can be maintained” means, of course, unless the court has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. See further Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 330, 336; Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. 208; Clark v. Wells, 203 U. S. 164.
It was admitted at the argument before us that if the suit against the other defendant should fail, as it has, there was no need to decide this case. But it must be disposed of in some way, and we are of opinion that the judgment below should be affirmed. The suit purports to bes against the succession. Yet the property sought to be attached is alleged in the petition to belong to the defendants, and is not alleged even to have belonged to the succession in the past. It seems from what was admitted at the argument that a part at least never did. But if it had belonged to' the succession, we gather from incidental testimony in the main case, from the allegations of separate titles in the petition for attachment, and from admissions at the bar, that it had been divided, and thereafter the liability of the heirs, if any, was personal, as explained in the other case. Even if a suit still could be maintained against the succession when there was no property left in the inheritance, the private property of the heirs could not be held to answer the judgment. On the other hand, if this could be regarded as a suit to enforce personal liability of such heirs as could be caught, it would fail for reasons stated in Ubarri v. Laborde. In view of the disposition of that case we deem it needless to say more.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Big Vein Coal Co. of W. Va. v. Read, 229 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1913)…been provided. We think the rule has not been changed; that an attachment is still but an incident to a suit, and that, unless jurisdiction can be obtained over the defendant, his estate cannot be attached in a Federal court. See Laborde v. Ubarri, 214 U. S. 173; United States v. Brooke, 184 Fed. Rep. 341. Another contention is that the defendant in appearing for the purpose of the motion submitting to the court the question of the right to attach his compensation as receiver in the court, had voluntarily…
-
State of Mo. Ex rel. ST. Louis v. Taylor, 266 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1924)
-
Davis v. Ensign-Bickford Co., 139 F.2d 624 (8th Cir. 1944)…re jurisdiction over the person of a defendant before it is authorized to attach his property or garnish his creditors. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 326, 328, 9 L.Ed. 1093; Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U.S. 794, 796, 26 L.Ed. 461; Laborde v. Ubarri, 214 U.S. 173, 174, 53 L.Ed. 955; Big Vein Coal Co. v. Read, 229 U.S. 31, 37, 38, 33 S.Ct. 694, 57 L.Ed. 1053; State of Missouri ex. rel. St. Louis, B. & M. R. Co. v. Taylor, 266 U.S. 200, 208, 45 S.Ct. 47, 69 L.Ed. 247, 42 A.L.R. 1232; Arkansas Anthracite Coal…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Toland v. Horatio Sprague, 12 Pet. 300 (U.S. 1838)
- Clark v. Wells, 203 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1906)
- Ex parte Ry. Co., 103 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1880)
- Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. 208 (U.S. 1857)