King v. Cross
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND. The firm of Brown, Steese & Clarke, established in Boston, on the 12th day of August, 1889, filed in the proper court in and for the county of Norfolk, Massachusetts, a petition praying to be allowed to take the benefit of the insolvent laws of the State of Massachusetts.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND. The firm of Brown, Steese & Clarke, established in Boston, on the 12th day of August, 1889, filed in the proper court in and for the county of Norfolk, Massachusetts, a petition praying to be allowed to take the benefit of the insolvent laws of the State of Massachusetts. On the day after — that is, on the 13th of August, 1&89 — John A. Cross, a citizen of Rhode Island, residing at Providence in that State, commenced suit in Rhode Island against the. members of the firm of Brown, Steese & Clarke on two negotiable notes drawn by the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice White
It is first asserted that the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island was not due process of law, and was in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because it recognized the right, in a suit brought in Rhode Island against a non-resident defendant, to garnishee the resident debtor of such defendant. It is contended that a judgment rendered by a court against a defendant who is neither within its jurisdiction, by his person or his property, is wholly void, and any attempt to enforce such judgment amounts to a denial of due process of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. SturmSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Norris v. DoniphanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863
- Security Trust Co. v. Dodd, Mead & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- McGill's creditors v. McGill's administratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Allen v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Sanders v. Armour Fertilizer WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- State Ex Rel. Ferrocarriles Nacionales De Mexico v. RutledgeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Armour Fertilizer Works v. SandersCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1933
- Rothschild v. KnightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Bates Machine Co. v. Norton Iron WorksCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1902
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.