Case ID: scl_14/html/0167-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Martin vs. Jeremiah Thompson.
    defendant, who has been made a party in the court of common pleas, by $ foreign attachment against his goods, and who resides in another state, can, under the act of Congress of 1†89, transfer the proceedings to the circuit court of the United States for the district where such attachment issued.
    But, by the same act, the lien upon the property attached is maintained, to answer the final judgment, in the same manner as if the case bad never been removed.
    This case was heard by Mr. Justice Waties who made the following report:
    “The above case was as follows: The plaintiff, a citizen of this state, sued out of the court of common pleas of Charleston district, a writ of foreign attachment against -Jeremiah Thompson, a citizen of New York, which was served upon goods in the hands of guarnishees. The defendant applied to me during the January Term by petition, setting forth the above facts and praying that on complying with the requisitions of the act of Congress of the 24th Sept. 1789, (t Graydon’s Digest 242. §. 12. Sz Ingersoll’s Digt. 370,) lie might be allowed to transfer the case to the circuit court of United States for the district of South Carolina. This was opposed on the ground that under the preceding section of the same law, the plaintiff was prohibited from bringing his foreign attachment against the defendant in the United States court, and the law could not have intended to give to the defendant any other privilege than that of transferring a case which the plaintiff had an election to bring either in the national or state tribunal, and that the law-makers did not design to favour the defendant more than the plaintiff: but I was of opinion that the 12th section of the act was not to be construed and restricted by the proceeding clause and, therefore, granted the petition.”
    . GrirrJce.
    
    Cases in attachment cannot be transferee! from a state court, to United States court, because attachments cannot issue from United States courts. (Act of Congress September 1789. Ing. Dig. 370. 2 Dal.296.) The provision in the art of Congress in regard to attachment of goods, relates only to attachments against aliens and not citizens.
    King, contra.'
    The act of Congress and the constitution of the United States, intended to insure to citizens of different states impartial trials. The case in Dallas does not apply, it is an attachment issuing from the United States courts, which cannot be done. The subsequent section of the act of Congress applies to attachments against citizens as well as foreigners. The words are general.
    
      Hunt, in reply.
    Foreign attachments not in contemplation of Congress in passing the act. It is the practice in Eorr.e states to commence actions by attachment where the defendant is present. Absurd that foreign attachments cannot be commenced in United States courts and yet may be brought there by transfer. Rule is that no case can be transferred to United States court where the action might not have been commenced there. As defendant was not in this, United States, district, he could not be sued there. To send the case to United States court might be to turn the parties out of court entirely, as that court would not (by entertaining jurisdiction) do that indirectly, which they cannot do directly.
   Johnson. J.

The question submitted to the court is whether a defendant who has been made a party in the court of common pleas by a foreign attachment against his goods, and who resides in the state of New-York, can under the act of Congress of 1789, transfer the proceedings to the circuit court of the United States for the district of South-Carolina? It is admitted that if the defendant hadbeen made a party by process against his person that it would have been his right so to have transfered the case; but it has been contended that by the laws of the United States a foreign attachment cannot issue from the courts of the United States against the goods or estate of the defendant residing in one of the states; and Hollingsworth vs. Adams (2 Dallas 196,) is relied on; and hence it is concluded that if a defendant cannot be made a party by attachment issuing from that court, that the court cannot take cognisance of any case originated by that pro cess. But, it will be seen at once, that that case was determined on quite a different principle. The act itself expressly provides, that an inhabitant of the United States shall not be made a party except in. the district where he resides or. shall be found at the time of suing the writ;-so that proceeding by attachment is.excluded in a case thus situated. But the 12 section of the act. (Ingersoll’s Digest 3.70,) appears to have provided for this very case. If n suit be commenced in any state court by a citizen of the state in which the action is brought, against a‘citizen of another state, the defendant is permitted under cartain regulations to remove the case to the circuit court of the United States; and the same clause provides, that “ any attachment of the goods or estates of the defendant, by original process, shall hold the goods or estate so attached to answer the final judgment, in the same manner as by the laws of such state they would have been holden to answer such final judgment, had it been rendered by the court in which the suit was.commenced.” That this provision is useless, unless a suit commenced by attachment against the goods and estates of the defendant can be removed, is self evident, and it must prevail; as there is no act prohibit* ing it

Motion dismissed.

Hunt and Grimke for the motion^

Kim contra»