Harris v. Balk
198 U.S. 215 (1905)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A debt is considered property of the creditor that accompanies the debtor (garnishee) wherever they go, and a state court can obtain valid quasi in rem jurisdiction to garnish that debt if the garnishee is personally served with process while physically present in that state, regardless of how temporary their presence is.
Facts:
- Balk, a resident of North Carolina, had a creditor named Epstein, who lived in Maryland.
- Harris, also a resident of North Carolina, owed a debt of $180 to Balk.
- Harris traveled to Baltimore, Maryland for a temporary visit.
- While Harris was in Maryland, Epstein initiated an action against Balk in a Maryland court.
- As part of that action, Epstein had Harris served with a writ of attachment to garnish the $180 debt that Harris owed to Balk.
- Pursuant to the Maryland court's proceedings, Harris paid the $180 debt to Epstein's lawyer.
- Upon returning to North Carolina, Harris was sued by Balk for the same $180 debt.
Procedural Posture:
- Epstein sued Balk in a Maryland state court and served a writ of garnishment on Harris.
- The Maryland court entered a judgment condemning the debt, which Harris then paid.
- Balk sued Harris in a North Carolina state trial court to recover the $180 debt.
- Harris asserted the Maryland judgment and his payment as a defense.
- The North Carolina trial court found in favor of Balk, refusing to recognize the Maryland judgment.
- Harris appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
- Harris (plaintiff in error) sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the North Carolina court failed to give full faith and credit to the Maryland judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Must a state court give full faith and credit to a judgment from another state that garnished a debt owed by a non-resident who was only temporarily present and personally served in that state?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Peckham
Yes, a state court must give full faith and credit to the judgment. The obligation of a debtor to pay a debt follows the debtor wherever they go, and if a creditor could sue the debtor in a state where the debtor is temporarily present, then a third-party creditor can attach that debt there as well. The court reasoned that the concept of the 'situs' of a debt is immaterial for attachment purposes. The true jurisdictional test is whether the garnishee (Harris) could have been sued by his own creditor (Balk) in the state where the attachment was issued. Because Balk could have sued Harris in Maryland while Harris was physically present, the Maryland court obtained jurisdiction over the debt when it obtained personal jurisdiction over Harris through service of process. Therefore, the Maryland judgment was valid and entitled to full faith and credit in North Carolina, and Harris's payment under that judgment is a valid defense to Balk's suit.
Dissenting - Justice Harlan and Justice Day
The opinion text notes that Justices Harlan and Day dissented but does not provide their reasoning.
Analysis:
Harris v. Balk established the doctrine that a debt follows the debtor, significantly expanding the power of state courts to assert quasi in rem jurisdiction. This principle allowed a plaintiff to sue a defendant in any state where the plaintiff could find and serve someone who owed the defendant money. The ruling created a form of 'transient jurisdiction' over intangible property. This expansive view of jurisdiction was later substantially curtailed by the Supreme Court in Shaffer v. Heitner (1977), which held that all assertions of state-court jurisdiction, including quasi in rem, must satisfy the 'minimum contacts' standard set forth in International Shoe Co. v. Washington.
