Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-04-02


necessary to reimburse him for the
premiums he had paid. However
valid the transaction this was all he
could recover in any event. and the
residue of the proceeds of the policies
belong to the estate of the insured.
The Court by its decree, forfeited to
the company an amount equal to the
premiums paid by Lester and only de-
creed the residue of the policies to
be paid to the estate of the Insured.
The evidence does not justify nor pub
lie policy require. decree more favor
able to the appellant. The decree must
be affirmed.
STEWART V. NORTHERN ASsUR.
CO.
Supreme Court of Appeals. West Va,
December Il, 1898.
A COURT OF ANOTHER STATE
CANNOT. WITHOUT SERVICE OF
PROCESS, OR APPEARANCE OF
DEFENDANT, GIVE JUDGMENT
AGAINST HIM ON A CONTRACT
THAT is VOID IN THE STATE
WHERE IT Is MADE.
IN SUCH CASE A GARNISHEE
MUST DEFEND, OR NOTIFY HIS
CREDITOR TO DEFEND THE
QUIZ, olt ~ lAN ID L
DEFAULT WILL NOT PROTECT
HIM.
Mary y. Stewart, a married woman.
brought this suit to recover on an in
surance policy held by her. The de-
PENDANT pleaded that as to Il part of
her claim it had paid $251.0T under 4
judgment of 4 Justice in Ohio in Il pro-
cecdng in which it was n garnishee.
Il. 1..
Mrs Stewart for store account The
defendant paid into the court the bal
ancc of policy. The lower court gave
Judgment for the plaintiff for S251.07
and defendant appealed. The court
says:
Appellants counsel, in their brief.
say: The fact that Mary y. Stewart
was u married woman, residing and
contracting in 4 State where the laws
n the time held her personal contract
void. would, IL 1t had been pleaded in
the OHIO court, have been Il complete
defense to the action OF Porter 6: Co.
because the courts everywhere. in the
exercise OF their undoubted jurisdiction.
give force and effect to the lex loci con-
tractus." They further say: "There is
no evidence that the Earnishee knew
that she was n married woman, and the
law did not require 1t to be concerned
with any fact not affecting the iuris-
X.
Judgm. section sos, in support of their
proposition. This position is correct TO
the extent said section goes. but. by
their proposition that the law does not
require the garnlshee to be concerned
with any fact not affecting the juris-
diction of the court. they assert that
the Earnishec owes no duty to its own
terable
1t is presumed that, when property
in the possession of an agent is seized
on legal process, the fact is known to
The agent; and in case Of punishment
of funds in the hands OF q debtor of
the defendant who is a nonresident.
and not served with process. it is
clearly the duty OF such garnishee, if
practicable. to notify his creditor of the
proceedings that he may make such
defense therein as his rights and in
terests may require.
1t IS admitted by appellant that If
plaintiff had appeared and pleaded the
statute of her state as it then existed
IA -aetiaR-hefefa ssssiiae-IIauser
the claim Of Porter & Co must have
been defeated: and vet with the full
knowledge of the proceedings against
her. and that she had no notice thereof
ana could not be served with process.
It stood by, and meekly paid out her
money, III obedience To the Justices
order. withou. even attempting, so far
as the record shows. to notify her Of
The jeopardy OF her property in its
nands, All of which "smacks" STRONGLY
Of collusion.
w ME Il Judgment of n competent
court OF any state thai has Jurisdiction
over the person and subject is
conclusive upon the merits of the con-
'roFersy III every State. I question ;he
power OF the court of another State
without service Of process or yoluntarv
appearance. to render n judgment on =
contract that is absolutely void under
the laws of the State where it is made
ana upon which contract n Judgment
. t by a court of such last-men-
toned State is void, even upon process
duly served
1t could never have been contem-
piated by the trainers of the constitu-
uoh OF the United States to include
among Judgments entitled to full fifth
ana credit, under section /. art
Judgment obtained upon contract all
soiuteiy void under the laws of the
otate where 1t was made. and upon
uted process. IT may be said.
then Where is the protection did
the Garnishee in such case? ON ttn
o'her hand, what protection has ITO
defendant. the creditor of the garnis;,oe
In such proceeding? The rarnisban
mas better facilities for protecting his
interests than the defendant. He is
served with process. He knows of the
proceeding Re can readily advise the
defendant, his creditor, thereof. and
make his defense sure, if any there be;
while without such notification the de-
PENDANT remains in profound ignorance
Of the proceeding until his property is
taken from him. may be on a valid
lust claim or demand. possibly by the
connivance OF the plaintiff and the gar