Kinston Manufacturing Co. v. Freeman
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by plaintiff from Stacy, J., at November Term, 1917, of LENOIR. This action was instituted by tbe plaintiff against the defendant upon a note alleged to have been executed by the defendant to J. T. Deal and assigned by J. T. Deal to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a North Carolina corporation. The, defendant is a resident of the State of Virginia. The summons was not personally served upon the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from Stacy, J., at November Term, 1917, of LENOIR. This action was instituted by tbe plaintiff against the defendant upon a note alleged to have been executed by the defendant to J. T. Deal and assigned by J. T. Deal to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a North Carolina corporation. The, defendant is a resident of the State of Virginia. The summons was not personally served upon the defendant. At the time of the institution of the action the plaintiff sued out a warrant of attachment, alleging that the defendant had property within the State of North Carolina, and caused…
1Opinion of the CourtAlleit, J.
The single question presented by this appeal is as to the power of the courts of the State to attach a judgment recovered in the Federal Court and the authorities are practically unanimous against the contention of the plaintiff that such an attachment is valid.
Sanborn, J., says in Meness v. Matthews, 197 F., 635 (C. C. A.) : “It is the general rule supported by the great weight of authority and specifically approved by the Supreme Court of the United States, that a judgment recovered in the court of one jurisdiction is not subject to garnishment in proceedings in a court of another…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wallace v. McConnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Wabash Railroad v. TourvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Franklin v. WardU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1822
- Henry v. Gold Park Mining Co.District Court, D. Colorado · 1883
- Mack v. WinslowCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- McNish v. BurchSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1926
- Eisenstadt Manufacturing Co. v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1926