Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Deer

Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Deer, 200 U.S. 176 (1906)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1906-01-02
Topic
general

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 *178 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Deer. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
51 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Full Faith and Credit Full faith and credit must be given to a judgment rendered against a defendant as garnishee in a State, other than that in which the plaintiff resides, where the garnishee does business in that State and is permanently liable to service and suit there, and the absent nonresident plaintiff was served by publication in the manner prescribed by that State's statutes; such a garnishment judgment and its payment constitute a complete defense to a later suit on the same debt in another State. 200 U.S. 176 (citing Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215)
  2. Civil Procedure — Collateral Attack on Jurisdictional Determinations A party who was notified by service in the manner prescribed by the statutes of the forum and who was aggrieved by the resulting judgment cannot attack that judgment collaterally in another forum, but must seek relief by appeal or other appropriate proceedings in the court that rendered it.
LOUISVILLE NASHVILLE RAILROADv. DEER,200 U.S. 176(1906)
26 S.Ct. 207
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANYv. DEER.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA.
No. 164.
Submitted December 14, 1905.
Decided January 2, 1906.
Harrisv.Balk,198 U.S. 215, followed to the effect that full faith and credit must be given to a judgment rendered against, and paid by, defendant as plaintiff's garnishee in a State, other than that in which plaintiff resides, and in which defendant does business and is liable to process and suit.
THE facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. George W. Jonesfor plaintiff in error:

Full faith and credit should have been given by the Alabama courts to the judicial proceedings of said Florida court. The garnishment judgment and its payment in Florida constituted a complete defense to the suit in Alabama. ThePage 177failure to so recognize it was a violation of § 1, Art. IV., Constitution of the United States, and act of Congress, May 26, 1790, Rev. Stat., § 905. SeeChi., R.I. P. Ry. Co. v.Sturm,174 U.S. 710;St. L. Ry. Co. v.Bartles, 56 S.W. 152;Railway Co. v.Thompson,31 Kan. 194;Fithianv.Railroad Co.,31 Pa. 114;Railroad Co. v.Crane,102 Ill. 249;Plimptonv.Bigelow,93 N.Y. 601.

The provisions of the Florida statutes were strictly complied with and the statutes are valid.Kingv.Cross,175 U.S. 396;Rothschildv.Knight,184 U.S. 341. The Florida record was valid on its face.Maxwellv.Stewart, 21 Wall. 71. Foreign corporations doing business by agents within a State are treated as residents of the State, and debts due from them to non-residents are garnishable in that State.Lancashire Ins.Co. v.Corbetts,165 Ill. 592;National Fire Ins. Co. v.Chambers,53 N.J. Eq. 468;Selma R. Co. v.Tyson,48 Ga. 351;German Bankv.Am. Fire Ins. Co.,83 Iowa 491;Consensv.Lovejoy,81 Me. 467; Root on Garnishment, § 245;C., B. Q. Ry. Co. v.Moore,31 Neb. 629, and cases cited.

Unless the full faith and credit contemplated by the provisions of the Federal Constitution, and the Federal statutes quoted, be given, the plaintiff in error must suffer by twice paying the same debt. It has no alternative.

If defendant in error was aggrieved at the Florida judgment, his remedy was by appeal or other appropriate proceedings in the Florida court. The Florida judgment could not be attacked collaterally in another forum.Laingv.Rigney,160 U.S. 542.

There was no appearance for defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action to recover a debt admitted to have been due to the plaintiff, the defendant in error. But it was agreedPage 178in 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. He was not, however, a resident of the State, but lived in Alabama, and the Supreme Court of the latter State affirmed a judgment in his 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 decided below are disposed of by the recent decision inHarrisv.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 inHarrisv.Balkwe think it unnecessary to say more.Judgment reversed.Page 179