Herbert v. Bicknell

Citations

• 233 U.S. 70
• 34 S. Ct. 562
• 58 L. Ed. 854
• 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1271

Syllabus

<p>The Hawaiian Supreme Court having held that leaving a copy of the summons at the place where defendant last had stopped amounted to leaving it at his usual abode within § 2114, Rev. Laws of Hawaii, this court will not disturb the judgment.</p> <p>The law assumes that property is always in the possession of its owner in person or by agent, and proceeds on the theory that its seizure will inform him not only that it has been tajeen into custody but that he must look to any proceeding authorized by law Upon such seizure for its condemnation and sale; and so held that an attachment and judgment under § 2114, Rev. Stat. Hawaii, does not on account of its provisions for service of the summons by leaving it at his last known place of abode deprive a non-resident of any rights guaranteed by the. Fifth Amendment. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714.</p> <p>The existence of a garnishment statute is notice to the owner of claims that he must be ready to be represented in case the debt is attached.</p> <p>In this case, as the defendant whose property was attached under § 2114, Rev. Stat. Hawaii, had knowledge of the attachment and judgment before the time for writ of error to the Supreme Court of the Territory had expired, he should have pursued that remedy and not suffered default and attempted to quash on the ground of want •of due process in the service.</p>