The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-07-13
OPINION OF THE COURT, BY
FREAR, J.


The plaintiff sued the defendants,
who were partners in the State OF
washington for work and labor done
and goods sold and delivered, and
attached a debt owing to the defend
ants by a person temporarily in these
islands. Service was made on one of
the defendants also temporarily here
but no appearance was made by or for
them The garnishee suggested that
the debt was owing to third person,
one John Martin, who was thereupon
cited in by the court. Martin appeared
by attorney and set up among other
things that he was, by appointment
of a court in the State of Washington,
receiver of all of defendants property,
that the debt sued on was contracted
in that State, that plaintiff and all the
defendants were residents of that
State, that said appointment had been
recognized by the plaintiff and was
binding on him and would be enforced
against him by the courts of that
State, and prayed that, as the rights
of no Hawaiian citizens were involved,
the receiver might be recognized by
comfy and the plaintiff RENTED to
his remedy in the State of Washing
lOh lC pI1Ihllll llICn III t1CCL uG-
MED that he had recognized the ap-
pointment of the receiver and alleged
among other things that he was domi-
ciled in these islands.
The court, jury having been waived,
ruled that the garnishment must hold
and the funds in the garnishee's hands
be held to abide the final action in the
case"
To this ruling exceptions were taken
by the receiver and the garnishee
The basis for this conclusion by the
trial court was that inasmuch as the
appointment of the receiver did not
operate as an absolute assignment to
him of the defendants assets, his
claim could not be preferred to the
claim of one who had already obtained
an attachment. 1t seems to us that an
essential issue was overlooked
In general, a receiver appointed in
one jurisdiction is not entitled as of
right to recognition in other jurisdic-
tions, but he may be recognized by COM
ity, ana whether he should or should
not be recognized in any particular case
depends upon the circumstances of
that case. Where, as in this case, a
creditor of a company over whose
property a receiver has been ap-
ny lOI6lSn court mas Cd
tanned an attachment here of a debt
owing to such company and the re-
ceiver intervenes, the rule is estab-
lished that if the creditor is a dome
site creditor his claim will be preferred
to that of the receiver, for he is not
subject to the foreign jurisdiction and
il is the duty of a court to protect it's
own people first; but the rule is other
wise if the creditor is a resident of the
state in which the receiver was ap-
pointed, and is bound by the orders
of its court, for to prefer his claim
would be an act of unfriendliness and
not of comfy. Bagby V. Att, Miss. &
Oh. R. Co, sc Pa ST. 291; Gilman V.
Ketcham. 81 Wis. 60; Bank V. Mcleod
SO Oh. ST. ia. See also Boulware V.
Davis, 80 Ala. 207 6 L. R. A. GOD;
Catlin V. Wilcox &c. Co., 123 Ind. AIT:
and note to Long V. Forrest, % l.. r.
A. SO (150 Pa. ST. ABB. We cannot now
state precisely the law applicable to
the facts of this case for we do not
know fully what the facts will be found
by the trial judge to be. We merely
state sufficient to show that there was
a material issue between the parties
which the trial court failed to consider.
A new trial is granted upon this
issue.
A. S. Hartwell for plaintiff; l. A
Dickey for receiver and garnishee.
Honolulu, June %, 1896.