Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Deer

200 U.S. 176, 26 S. Ct. 207, 50 L. Ed. 426, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1465
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 2, 1906
Docket164
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 200 U.S. 176 (Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Deer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Deer, 200 U.S. 176, 26 S. Ct. 207, 50 L. Ed. 426, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1465 (1906).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to recover a debt admitted to have ¡b^en due to the plaintiff, the defendant in error. But it was agreed *178 in the trial court that a suit was brought by one Brock against the plaintiff in Florida, in which the railroad company, the present plaintiff in error, was summoned as garnishee, judgment was recovered against the latter as such for the sum now in suit, and the sum paid by it into court, all before the present suit was begun. The proceedings in Florida were strictly in accordance with the laws of that State. The railroad company did business there and was permanently liable to service and suit, and the defendant, the present defendant in error, was notified by such publication as 'the statutes of Florida prescribed. lie was not, however, a resident of the State, but lived in Alabama, and the Supreme Court of the latter State affirmed a judgment in bis favor on the ground that the Florida court had no jurisdiction to render the judgment relied on as a defense.

.-.Whatever doubts may have been felt when this case was décided below are disposed of by the recent decision in Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215. There the garnishee was only temporarily present' in Maryland, where the first judgment was rendered, and the defendant in that judgment was absent from the State, and served only as the defendant in error was served in Florida. Yet the Maryland judgment was held valid; and a decision by the Supreme Court of North Carolina denying the jurisdiction of the Maryland court was reversed. In the present case the railroad company was permanently present in the State where it was served.- In view of the full and recent discussion in Harris v. Balk we think it unnecessary to say more.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Williams v. Williams
371 So. 2d 297 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)
Shaffer v. Heitner
433 U.S. 186 (Supreme Court, 1977)
Lefcourt v. Sea Crest Hotel & Motor Inn, Inc.
54 Misc. 2d 376 (New York State Court of Claims, 1967)
Schoener v. Continental Motors Corp.
106 N.W.2d 774 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1961)
Parkhurst Estate
14 Pa. D. & C.2d 661 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1958)
Standard Oil Co. v. New Jersey
341 U.S. 428 (Supreme Court, 1951)
Mondin v. Mondin
274 A.D. 69 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)
Rosenthal v. Maletz
78 N.E.2d 652 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Leeds, Inc. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
56 N.E.2d 461 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1943)
Huron Holding Corp. v. Lincoln Mine Operating Co.
312 U.S. 183 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Allen v. Belford
35 F. Supp. 111 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1940)
Forest Products Co. v. Magistrelli
14 A.2d 397 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1940)
Schlaefer v. Schlaefer
112 F.2d 177 (D.C. Circuit, 1940)
Dickson v. Simpson
113 S.W.2d 1190 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1938)
Morris W. Haft & Bros. v. Wells
93 F.2d 991 (Tenth Circuit, 1937)
Pierce v. Pierce
56 P.2d 336 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1936)
Heydemann v. Westinghouse Electric Mfg. Co.
80 F.2d 837 (Second Circuit, 1936)
Zuhlke v. Prudential Life Insurance Co. of America
244 A.D. 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)
Brooklyn Borough Gas Co. v. Bennett
154 Misc. 106 (New York County Courts, 1935)
Sanders v. Armour Fertilizer Works
292 U.S. 190 (Supreme Court, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
200 U.S. 176, 26 S. Ct. 207, 50 L. Ed. 426, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisville-nashville-railroad-v-deer-scotus-1906.