Harris v. Balk
198 U.S. 215 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
Facts
Harris, a resident of North Carolina, owed money to Balk, also a resident of North Carolina. Epstein, a resident of Maryland, claimed Balk owed him money. While Harris was temporarily present in Maryland, Epstein initiated an attachment proceeding against Balk's debt owed by Harris. Harris was personally served with process in Maryland, and a Maryland court entered a judgment condemning the debt. Harris subsequently paid Epstein under this Maryland judgment. Balk later sued Harris in North Carolina to recover the original debt, but Harris pleaded the Maryland judgment as a defense.
Procedural history
The state court of North Carolina refused to give effect to the Maryland judgment. The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed this refusal. The case then came before the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Issue
Did the Maryland court have jurisdiction to garnish a debt owed by a temporarily present non-resident (Harris) to another non-resident (Balk), thereby entitling the resulting judgment to full faith and credit in North Carolina?
Holding
Yes, the Maryland court had jurisdiction because Harris was personally served within the state. Therefore, the Maryland judgment was valid and must be given full faith and credit by North Carolina courts.
Rule
A state court acquires jurisdiction over a debt for garnishment purposes if the garnishee is personally served within the state, even if the garnishee is only temporarily present and the debt's original situs is elsewhere. The critical factor is whether the garnishee could have been sued by his creditor in that state. The obligation to pay a debt accompanies the debtor wherever they go, making the debt attachable where the debtor is found. The garnishee has a duty to notify his creditor of the attachment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.