· 5/8/1905

Harris v. Balk

Citations

198 U.S. 215
25 S. Ct. 625
49 L. Ed. 1023
1905 U.S. LEXIS 1122

Syllabus

A citizen of North Carolina who owed money to another citizen of that State, was, while temporarily in Maryland, garnisheed by a creditor of the man to whom he owed the money. Judgment was duly entered according to Maryland practice and paid. Thereafter the garnishee was sued in North Carolina by the original creditor and set up the garnishee judgment and payment, but the North Carolina-courts held that as the situs of the debt was in North Carolina the Maryland judgment was not a bar and awarded judgment against him. Held, error and that: As under the laws of Maryland the garnishee could have been sued by his creditor in the courts of that State he was subject to garnishee process if found and served in the State even though only there temporarily, no matter where the situs of the debt was originally. Attachment is the creature of the local law, and power over the person of the garnishee confers jurisdiction on the cpurts of the State where the writ issues. A judgment against a garnishee, properly obtained according to the law of the State, and paid, must under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, be recognized as a payment of the original debt, by the courts of another State, in an action brought against the garnishee' by the original creditor. Where there is absolutely no defense and the plaintiff is entitled to recover, there is no reason why the garnishee should not consent to a judgment impounding the debt, and his doing so does not amount to such a voluntary payment that he is not protected thereby under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. While it ne uuj — ' of the courts to prevent the payment of any debt twice, over, the failure on the part of the garnishee to'give proper notice to his creditor; of the levying of the attachment, would be such neglect of duty to his creditor, as would prevent him from a vailing, of the garnishee judgment as a bar to the suit of the creditor, and thus

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1905 United States Supreme Court case

Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case that exemplified the idiosyncratic types of jurisdiction state courts (and therefore plaintiffs ) could assert through _quasi in rem _ actions before _International Shoe's _ (1945)[1] "minimum contacts" test replaced _Pennoyer's _ (1878)[2] principles of "power and notice".[3]

This case involved three parties: Harris, Balk, and Epstein. Harris owed Balk money and Balk owed Epstein money. Thus, there was no debt relationship between Harris and Epstein. Harris and Balk lived in North Carolina while Epstein lived in Maryland . Harris traveled to Maryland. While he was there, Epstein attached the debt Harris owed Balk in order for Epstein to obtain jurisdiction over Balk. Through this, Epstein hoped to obtain the debt that Balk owed him by accessing the debt Harris owed Balk. Consequently, Epstein obtained a judgment against Balk which directed Harris to pay Epstein instead of Balk.

Under contemporary jurisdictional principles, a state court could not assert _in personam _ jurisdiction over someone who was not physically served process in that state. However, if a defendant, on whom in personam jurisdiction was unable to be asserted, owned property in the state in which plaintiff was situated, plaintiff could "attach" to the action whatever property defendant owned in that state. Such an action was labeled quasi in rem and, when this occurred, state courts were permitted to assert jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant on any matter, with the limitation that any remedy be limited to involving only the attached property.

As debt is considered actual property of the creditor, and, at the time was considered to be physically located with the debtor, when Harris entered Maryland, he brought along the debt he owed to Balk, allowing Epstein to attach it in a quasi in rem action and obtain jurisdiction over Balk.

The principles allowing the Maryland state court to assert jurisdiction in this case were subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court case in _Shaffer v. Heitner _ (1977).[4]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harris_v._Balk&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: References")
]

↑ _International Shoe Co. v. Washington _, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
↑ _Pennoyer v. Neff _, 95 U.S. 714 (1878).
↑ Yeazell, Stephen C. (2004). Civil Procedure (6th ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers. pp. 84 . ISBN 0-7355-4511-1 .
↑ _Shaffer v. Heitner _, 433 U.S. 186 (1977).

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harris_v._Balk&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: External links")
]

Works related to Harris v. Balk at Wikisource
Text of Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215 (1905) is available from: Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harris_v._Balk&oldid=1351345750 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Harris v. Balk

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

addressing personal jurisdiction of garnishee, the Court held that debts have no locus or situs but accompany the account debtor everywhere
permitting attachment of debts temporarily and adventitiously located in the forum state, even though debt was created elsewhere
establishing notice rules for recognition of judgments under the Full Faith and Credit Clause
“The obligation of the debtor to pay his debt clings to and accompanies him wherever he goes”
“It ought to be and is the object of courts to prevent the payment of any debt twice over.”
“It ought to be and is the object of courts to prevent the payment of any debt twice over.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Peckham, Harlan, Day

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.