Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-06-08
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN,
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
viRcINIAN.PiLoT.
Notes OF Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
STRAUSE v. AETNA ms. co.


Supreme Court of North Carolina,
March q. 1900.
THE GARNISHMENT IN PENNSYL-
WANNA OF A CONNECTICUT COR
PORATION FOR A DEBT DUE A
RESIDENT OF NORTH CAROLINA
is NOT A DEFENSE TO A SUIT
BY SAID RESIDENT IN NORTH
CAROLINA AGAINST SAID COR
PORATION.
The facts are stated in the opinion OF
| the court.
The Court says:
The defendant is n corporation char
tered in Connecticut, and issued it's pol
Icy OF insurance to the plaintiffs, who
are residents and citizens of this
state. upon property located here.
Inc property was partially de-
stroyed by fire. and the amount
OF the loss has been adjusted
In the manner required by the policy.
The action is brought to recover that
| sum. The only defense set up is that a
| creditor of the plaintiffs in Pennsylva-
| MIA has Instituted an action against
them in that state, and attached the
liability OF the defendant company to
said plaintiffs by reason of said loss
| by garnishing the agent of the defend
ant in that state, which action WAS in
stituted before the beginning of this.
and is still pending in the courts of that
state; wherefore the defendant asks
| that this action be stayed till the deter
| mination of that. The courts of one
state give full faith and credit to judg-
ments rendered in another when jurs-
diction has been obtained of the person
or suDject-matter; but, when such Is
not the case. the judgment of the for
elSn state Is treated rs q nullity So
| the sole uiIStinn ic
pennsylvania court has acquired juris-
| dlcton by such garnishment (for there
| was no personal service upon plain
tins). since. If it has not, then as the
Judgment. If 1t shall be rendered adj
| Verscly to these plaintiffs will be n
nclilty, stay of proceedings in the
courts here will be useless. 1t Is true
that under the Pennsylvania statute
the defendant. a Connecticut corpora
ton. is required to appoint n resident
agent in that state. upon whom process
can be served. and this Is a condition
nonresident corporations, but that
only renders the Connecticut cor
| poration suable in PENNSYLVANIA
| by giving personal service upon
Its agent. 1t does not carry the
sttus of the debt 1t owes to the plain
| THIS to Pennsylvania, and make the
plaintiffs Strause suable in Pennsylva-
MA. because their debtor. the defendant
| company, can be sued there for their
own Indebtedness to a plaintiff If sua-
bil1ty Of the defendant were the test.
| the plaintiffs could be sued in every
| state and in every foreign country
| where their debtor has an agency.
Many court deny that a creditor can
be brought into court by attaching a
debt due to him, and 1t is certainly not
very logical that n debt should have q
sltus where the debtor resides, for the
debt Is property of the creditor. not
of the debtor Some courts however
have gone that far including the
courts OF this state; but none have gone
SO far as to hold that debts may be
acknowledgements well-nigh ubiquitous
in this case.-by having Il situs wher-
ever the debtor has an agent who can
be served with process for its own in
debtedness. An attachment could be
LEVIED in Pennsylvania only upon prop
erty of the defendant in such action.
and these plaintiffs had no property in
that state. and the debt due them by
the Connecticut corporation was not in
the hands of such companys local
agent in Pennsylvania To put 1t as
strongly as possible. suppose the de-
PENDANT was a natural person, n citizen
and resident of Connecticut and was
Temporarily in Philadelphia. so that he
could be personally served with pro-
cess for his own indebtedness to a
plkinuff, would that make him liable to
garnShment by any one holding n
claim against those whom he owed?
This question has often arisen. and has
urifarr1ily been decided in the negative
AffirfTleo.