May v. Ohio Falls Car Co.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

May v. Ohio Falls Car Co.

4 Ky. Op. 558, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 111

DecidedApril 30, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Ky. Op. 558 (May v. Ohio Falls Car Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

May v. Ohio Falls Car Co., 4 Ky. Op. 558, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 111 (Ky. Ct. App. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of ti-ie Court by

Judge IIardin :

This was an ordinary aetionj founded on a judgment of a court in Indiana, against Joseph J. Conway, a non-resident of this State, and only constructively before the court. Hpon the affidavit of the plaintiff an order of attachment was issued, which was returned executed by delivering a copy to J. W. Sprague, the president of the Ohio Falls Car Company, a corporation located in, and created by the laws of Indiana, and which, it appears, was indebted to Conway, as one of its employes in the State of Indiana, Sprague being casually in Kentucky when served with a copy of said order.

The court of common pleas having, in effect, adjudged the service inoperative to bring the corporation within its jurisdiction, as a garnishee, the plaintiffs have appealed to this court. The jurisdiction of the court depending on the levy of the process on some property of Conway, or its service as to some debt owing to him in Kentucky, the essential question to be determined is [559]*559whether the mere presence of one of the officers of the corporation in this State brought with him the right of Conway as against the corporation, or gave his debt any tangible existence or legal situs here. We are of the opinion that it did not

G. V. Hawh & Bon, for appellants. Gibson & Bon, for appellees.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

Opinion of ti-ie Court by

Judge IIardin :

This was an ordinary aetionj founded on a judgment of a court in Indiana, against Joseph J. Conway, a non-resident of this State, and only constructively before the court. Hpon the affidavit of the plaintiff an order of attachment was issued, which was returned executed by delivering a copy to J. W. Sprague, the president of the Ohio Falls Car Company, a corporation located in, and created by the laws of Indiana, and which, it appears, was indebted to Conway, as one of its employes in the State of Indiana, Sprague being casually in Kentucky when served with a copy of said order.

The court of common pleas having, in effect, adjudged the service inoperative to bring the corporation within its jurisdiction, as a garnishee, the plaintiffs have appealed to this court. The jurisdiction of the court depending on the levy of the process on some property of Conway, or its service as to some debt owing to him in Kentucky, the essential question to be determined is [559]*559whether the mere presence of one of the officers of the corporation in this State brought with him the right of Conway as against the corporation, or gave his debt any tangible existence or legal situs here. We are of the opinion that it did not

G. V. Hawh & Bon, for appellants. Gibson & Bon, for appellees.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Ky. Op. 558, 1872 Ky. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-ohio-falls-car-co-kyctapp-1872.