 |
This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (June 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
| Harris v. Balk | |
|---|---|
| |
| Argued April 4, 1905 Decided May 1, 1905 | |
| Full case name | Isaac N. Harris, plaintiff in error, v. B. Balk |
| Citations | 198 U.S. 215 (more)
|
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Peckham |
Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215 (1905) which was decided on May 1, 1905, exemplified the bizarre types of jurisdiction state courts (and therefore plaintiffs and other parties seeking to add or implead other parties) could assert in the course of American quasi in rem actions.[1]
Harris traveled to Maryland and, while he was there, Epstein attached the debt Harris owed to Balk to obtain jurisdiction over Balk (in a suit to try to collect the debt Balk owed to him). Epstein obtained a judgment against Balk which directed Harris to pay Epstein instead of Balk.
To understand the principles in this case, one must understand a little about quasi in rem actions and jurisdictional principles in American law at the time. At that time, a state court could not assert jurisdiction (in personam jurisdiction) over someone who was not physically served process in that state. However if a defendant, on whom in personam jurisdiction was unable to be asserted, owned property in a state, a plaintiff could "attach" whatever property they owned to the action.
 |
This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
