ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
HOPKINS
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 Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company challenged a Circuit Court order in a garnishment proceeding that authorized execution against the garnishee if payment was not made. The Supreme Court reversed the execution provision, holding that under Kansas law, a garnishment order was not a final judgment but merely assigned the debtor's claim to the creditor, and thus execution could only be enforced through an ordinary action rather than by execution against the garnishee. The Court affirmed the remainder of the order and remanded with directions to strike the execution language.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The Supreme Court of Kansas, since the order complained of in this case was made, has decided that an order in a pro-, ceeding in aid of execution, under sect. 490 of the Civil Code of that State, directing a garnishee to pay to the judgment creditor money which he owed the judgment debtor, was not a judgment, and did not determine finally the liability of the garnishee. The language of the opinion is as follows: —
“The making of it [such an order] is not an adjudication oetween the parties. It does not determine their ultimate rights. It simply gives to the creditor the same right to enforce the payment of the money from the garnishee that the debtor previously had. It is in effect only an assignment of the claim from the debtor to the creditor. • The creditor gains no more or greater rights than the debtor had, and the garnishee loses no rights. And the payment of the money can be enforced from the garnishee to the creditor only by an ordinary action.” Board of Education v. Scoville, 13 Kan. 32.
In a previous case, Arthur v. Hale, 6 id. 165, it was held to b'e error to award execution against a. garnishee to collect the money in case he failed to make payment according to the order. As the practice in the courts of the United States must conform as near as may be to that in the courts of the State, Rev. Stat., sect; 914, these decisions construing the practice acts of the State are binding upon the courts of the United States. It follows that the Circuit Court erred in directing that execution might issue in this case against the garnishee if payment should not be made according to the order. ‘ To that extent the order of the Circuit Court is reversed, but in all other respects affirmed; the defendant in error to pay the costs in this court.
Cause remanded,, with directions to modify the order complained of by striking out all that part thereof which directs that execution may issue.-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass'n v. Phelps, 190 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1903)…t is what is known as a supplementary proceeding, one known to the jurisprudence of many States, and one whose validity in those States has been recognized by this court. Williams v. Hill, 19 How. 246; Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company v. Hopkins, 94 U. S. 11; Ex parte Boyd, 105 U. S. 647; Street Railroad Company v. Hart, 114 U. S. 654. It is recognized in some cases in Kentucky. Caldwell v. Bank of Eminence, 18 Ky. Law Rep. 156; Caldwell v. Deposit Bank, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 684. This proceeding was treated…
-
N. & G. Taylor Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 275 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1928)
-
Hood v. Bell, 84 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1936)…tions was a matter to be determined by the local practice under the Conformity Act. 28 U.S.C.A. § 724; Burns [*138] Mortgage Co., Inc., v. Fried, 292 U.S. 487, 492, 54 S.Ct. 813, 814, 78 L.Ed. 1380, 92 A. L.R. 1193; Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 94 U.S. 11, 13, 24 L.Ed. 48; City of Greensboro v. Southern Pav. & Construction Co. (C.C.A. 4th) 168 F. 880, 884 (cert. den. 217 U.S. 602, 30 S.Ct. 693, 54 L.Ed. 898). And we think there can be no doubt but that the North Carolina statute requires that substit…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence