# Opinion — Davis v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. LR Co.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386001_0081%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opinion
- **Published:** January 1, 1910
- **Citation:** 217 U.S. 157

## Text

DAVIS v. CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST.
LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA.

No. 123. Argued March 3, 4, 1910.—Decided April 4, 1910.

Even though the certificate is not in proper form this court can review
the judgment of the Circuit Court under § 5 of the act of 1891 if the
record shows clearly that the only matter tried and decided in that

court was one of jurisdiction. é

The fact that a writ of error was sued out from the Circuit Court of
Appeals to the Circuit Court and dismissed is not a bar to the juris-
diction of this court to review the judgment of the Circuit Court on
the question of its jurisdiction as a Federal court.

A court cannot without personal service acquire jurisdiction over the
person, and it is open to one not served, but whose property is at-
tached, to appear specially to contest the control of the court over
such property; and in this case the appearance of the defendant for

that purpose was special and not general.

'

158 OCTOBER TERM, 1909.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 217 U.S.

Neither the enactment of § 5258, Rev. Stat., nor of the Interstate Com-
merce Law by Congress abrogated the attachment laws of the States.

Although different views have been taken in several States as to the
immunity from seizure and garnishment under attachment of cars
engaged in interstate commerce and credits due for interstate trans-
portation, this court holds that it wes within the jurisdiction of the
state court to seize and hold the cars and credits seized and gar-
nisheed in this case, notwithstanding their connection with inter-
state commerce.

THE facts, which involve the liability to attachment of cars
used in interstate commerce, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Wilbur Owen, with whom Mr. Elbert H. Hubbard was
on the brief, for plaintiff in error:

The cars and funds were subject to attachment and garnish-
ment. The rolling stock of railway corporations is personal
property, over which they have the power of alienation, and
is subject to seizure, when not in actual use, by attachment or
execution, or other valid process, the same as other personal
property. Boston C. M. Ry. Co. v. Gilmore, 37 N. H. 410;
Coe v. Col. Pig. & I. R. R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 372; Louisville &
New Albany Ry. Co. v. Boney, 117 Indiana, 501; Buffalo Coal
Co. v. Rochester & S. L. Ry. Co., 8th Weekly Notes Cases, 126
(Penn.); Williamson v. N. J. S. R. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 311;
Randall v. Elwell, 52 N. Y. 521; Potter v. Hall, 20 Massachu-
setts, 368; Hall v. Carey, 140 Massachusetts, 131; Johnson v.
Southern Pacific, 196 U. S. 1; Elliott on Railroads, vol. 2,
p. 587; Drake on Attachment, 7th ed., § 252A; 4 Cyc. Law &
Procedure, p. 557; The “ Winnebago” v. Delaney, 205 U.S.
354; Johnson v. Chi. & Pac. Elevator Co., 119 U. 8. 388; The
Robert Dollar, 115 Fed. Rep. 218; Ex parte McNeil, 13 Wall.
236; Menich v. Tehuantepec Co., 16 La. Ann. 46; Sibley v. Fer-
ris, 22 La. Ann. 163; Haberle v. Barringer, 29 La. Ann. 410;
Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. 8. 99.

Notwithstanding that Congress has passed laws inflicting
severe penalties upon anyone who interferes with the trans-
portation of mail, a boat owned by a mail contractor may be

DAVIS rv. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. 159

217 U.S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

attached if the mail be not on the boat at the time. Parker v.
Porter, 6 La. Ann. 169; 4 Cyc. L., p. 569; Waples on Attach-
ment, § 723; Briggs v. Strange, 17 Massachusetts, 405.

The fact that chattels were when seized upon attachment,
execution or replevin, subjects of interstate commerce or were
in transit from one State te another, has never been regarded
as preventing their actual seizure if within the jurisdiction of
the court issuing the process, and they can even be held by
garnishment of the carrier if not too late to arrest the ship-
ment. Morrell v. Buckley, 20 N. J. L. 667; Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.
Bossut, 19 Am. & Eng. Ry. Cases, 683; 5 Am. & Eng. Ency.
of Law, p. 239; Waples on Attachment, 2d ed., § 449; Moore on
Carriers, pp. 34, 229, 232; Adams v. Scott, 104 Massachusetts,
164; Landa V. Holck, 129 Missouri, 663; The Robert Dollar, 115
Fed. Rep. 218, 222.

The cars in question wken attached were not engaged in
interstate commerce. They were, with one exception, stand-
ing “‘empty and idle” upor the tracks of the garnishees: they
had reached their destination and had been unloaded. Nor.
& West. R. R. Co. v. Comnonwealth, 93 Virginia, 749. The
record fails to establish any contractual relations between the
principal defendant and the garnishees.

Even if the garnishees had the right of reloading the cars, it
is not claimed that there vas any intention on their part to
exercise that right. Rauscz v. Moore, 48 Iowa, 611.

No rule of law or statute requires any railway company to
receive shipments from cornecting lines and transfer them in
the same cars in which tley are tendered; nor are railway
companies bound to allow their cars to go beyond their own
terminals, and in practice railway companies often refuse to
transport freight in any but their own cars, or to allow their
ears to be used beyond their own terminals. Rev. Stat.,
§ 5228, authorizing through shipments is permissive only and
imposes no affirmative duties upon railway companies. 6 Am.
& Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 09; Kentucky Bridge Co. v. Louis-
ville, 37 Fed. Rep. 567; More on Carriers, 453, 454.

160 OCTOBER TERM, 1909.
Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 217 U.S.

In order that a state law, or the action of state authorities
under such law should be construed a ‘‘ regulation of commerce
between States,”’ the operation of such law, or the action of
such state authorities must be a direct interference or regula-
tion, and directly and substantially hurtful to such com-
merce, not a mere incidental or casual interruption or regula-
tion, or remotely hurtful. Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99;
L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 U.S. 503; N. Y., L. E. & W.
R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U. 8. 431; Henderson Bridge Co.
v. Kentucky, 166 U.S. 150; L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Kentucky, 161
U. S. 677; Nashville Ry. Co. v. Alabama, 128 U. 8. 96; Wall
v. Nor. & West. Ry. Co., 448. E. Rep. (W. Va.) 294; Conery
v.Q. 0. & K. Ry. Co., 99 N. W. Rep. (Minn.) 365, are not simi-
lar in their facts to the case at bar.

Debts due a principal defendant from a garnishee are sub-
ject to garnishment wherever the garnishee could as in this
case be sued by the defendant. See §§ 3497, 3529 of the Code
of Iowa.

There is no inhibition in the laws of Iowa preventing suits
by a non-resident plaintiff in the courts of Iowa. Nor is it
material that the debt was not made payable in the State
where the attachment proceedings were instituted or that the
garnishee’s contract with the defendant is to pay the money in
another State or country than that in which the attachment is
pending. 14 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, pp. 804, 816; Harvey
v. G. N. Ry. Co., 50 Minnesota, 405; Drake on Attachment,
7th ed., § 597; Mooney v. Buford, 72 Fed. Rep. (C. C. A.) 32;
Mooney v. U. P. R. R. Co., 60 Towa, 346; German Bank v. Ins.
Co., 83 Iowa, 491: National Fire Ins. Co. v. Chambers, 53 N. J.
Eq. 468; Blake v. Williams, 6 Pick. 286; Minor on Conflict of
Laws, § 125; Wyeth Hdw. Co. v. Lang, 127 Missouri, 242;
Cross v. Brown, 19 R. I. 220; Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215;
Newfielder v. Ger.-Am. Ins. Co., 6 Washington, 336; M. & O.
R. R. Co. v. Barnhill, 90 Tennessee, 349; Smith v. Tabor, 16
Tex. Civil Appeals, 154; Pomeroy v. Rand, 157 Illinois, 176;
Cousins v. Lovejoy, 83 Maine, 467; Fithian v. Ry. Co., 31 Pa.

DAVIS v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. 161
217 U.S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

St. 114; Barr v. King, 96 Pa. St. 485; Blake v. Huntington, 129
Massachusetts, 444; Cahoon v. Morgan, 38 Vermont, 236;
Towle v. Wilder, 51 Vermont, 622; Mashussuck elt Mill v.
Blanding, 17 R. I. 297.

These garnished funds are not shown to be receipts for car-
riage of interstate commerce, and even if so they would not
be immune from garnishment. The garnishment of these
funds would in no sense be a “regulation of commerce be-
tween the states.”

The statutes of Iowa inhibit special appearances. § 3541
of the Code of Iowa; Bank v. Vann, 12 Iowa, 523; Rahn v.
Greer, 37 Iowa, 627; Lesure Lumber Co. v. Ins. Co., 101 Iowa,
514; Moffitt v. Chicago Chronicle Co., 107 Iowa, 412; Blondel v.
Ohlman, 109 N. W. Rep. (Ia.) 806; Sam v. Hochstadler, 76
Texas, 162; Lucas v. Patton, 107 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 1143.

This section of the Iowa Code is binding upon Federal
courts held within that State, § 914, Rev. Stat.; Amy v. Water-
town, 130 U. S. 304; but even if not it generally would be
binding in this case as it was removed from the state court.
The appearance made by the defendant in error, and the mat-
ters contained in its motion and affidavit, filed under such
appearance, cannot be regarded as a special, but constituted
a general appearance.

A special appearance is never allowable except for the single
purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the defendant. 3 Cyc. L., pp. 502, 511, 527; 2 Ency.
of Pl. & Pr. 620, 621, 625; Elliott v. Lawhead, 43 Ohio St. 171;
Fitzgerald Const. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. 8. 98; Welch v.
Ayers, 61 N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 635; Abbott v. Semple, 25 Illinois,
91; State v. Buck, 15 So. Rep. (La.) 531; Mahr v. U. P. R. Co.,
140 Fed. Rep. 921; Perrine v. Knights Templars, 101 N. W.
Rep. (Neb.) 101; S.C., 98 N. W. Rep. 481; Dudley v. White,
44 Florida, 264; Ray v. Trice, 48 Florida, 297; Reed v. Chil-
son, 142 N. Y. 152; Lowe v. Stringham, 14 Wisconsin, 222;
Rogers v. McCord, &c., 91 Pac. Rep. (Okl.) 864; Wabash West-
ern Ry. v. Brow, 164 U. 8. 271.

VOL. ccxvu—11

162 OCTOBER TERM, 1909.

Argument for Defendant in Error. 217 U.S.

An appearance to a writ of attachment is a general ap-
pearance, especially when coupled with objections requiring
evidence to sustain, or objections to the jurisdiction in rem, or
it moves to quash for matters not going to irregularity in
process or service thereof, and is sought to be sustained by
matters dehors the record. Waples on Attachment, 2d ed.,
§ 702, 658; Wood v. Young, 38 Iowa, 102; Whiting v. Budd, 5
Missouri, 443; Evans v. King, 7 Missouri, 411; Withers v.
Rogers, 24 Missouri, 340; Greenwell v. Greenwell, 26 Kansas,
530; Gorham v. Tanquery, 58 Kansas, 233; Burnham v. Lewis,
65 Kansas, 481; Frazier v. Douglas, 48 Pac. Rep. 36; Nicholas
& Shepard Co. v. Baker, 13 Oklahoma, 1; Ray v. Mercantile
Co., 26 Pac. Rep. 996; Duncan v. Wycliffe, 4 Met. (Ky.) 118;
Raymond v. Niz, 49 Pac. Rep. 1110; Gann v. Beasly, 59 N. W.
Rep. 714; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308.

Although the defendant in error did not ask for a dismissal
of the action in its written motion filed under its alleged spe-
cial appearance, the record discloses that on June 6, a second
judgment was rendered on motion of the defendant, quashing
the service of notice on the defendant, dismissing plaintiff's
cause of action and rendering judgment in its favor and
against the plaintiff for $129.70.

This was error and is a general appearance. Teater v. King,
35 Washington, 138; Welch v. Ayers et al., 61 N. W. Rep.
371; Bucklin v. Strickler, 32 Nebraska, 602; Everett v. Wilson
83 Pac. Rep. 211.

Mr. W. H. Farnsworth, with whom Mr. Frank L. Littleton
was on the brief, for defendant in error:

The cars attached were engaged in interstate commerce and
under control of Congress, notwithstanding some of the cars
were empty and awaiting their return to their owner in com-
pletion of an interstate journey. Johnson v. So. Pac. Co., 196
U. S. 1; Connery v. Railway Co., 92 Minnesota, 20; Shore &
Bros. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 768. C. 472.

There is a distinction between merchandise which may or

DAVIS v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. 163
217 U.S. Argument for Defendant in Error.

may not become articles of interstate commerce, and cars or
other instruments which are used in moving interstate com-
modities, which may have stopped temporarily on their
journey. Johnson v. S. P. Co., 196 U.S. 20.

The state laws cannot be permitted to impede or impair in-
terstate traffic, or the usefulness of the facilities for such
traffic. J.C. R. Co. v. Illinois, 164 U. 8. 142; Bowman v. Chi-
cago, 125 U.S. 465; Ry. Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584; C. &
N. W. Ry. Co. v. Foresi, 95 Wisconsin, 80; Michigan, C. R. Co.
v.C. & M.L.S.R.Co., 1 Ill. App. 399; Connery v. R. Co., 92
Minnesota, 20; Shore & Bros. v. B. & O.R.R.Co., 768. C. 472;
Seibels v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co., 61 8. E. Rep. 435; Wall v.
Ry. Co., 64 L. R. A. (W. Va.) 501.

The method of service of the writs of attachment was irregu-
lar and illegal, and conferred no rights upon the plaintiff. The
cars sought to be reached were susceptible of manual delivery,
and to create any lien or give effect to the proceedings the
officer must take manual custody of the property. § 3898,
Iowa Code. Also see 1 Shinn on Attach. & Garn., Ist ed., 391 .
Culver v. Rumsey, 6 Ill. App. 598; R. R. Co. v. Pennock, 51
Pa. St. 244; Drake on Attachments, 7th ed., § 246; Crawford v.
Newell, 23 Iowa, 453; Hibbard v. Zenor, 75 Iowa, 471; Hall v.
Craney, 140 Massachusetts, 131; Boston R. R. Co. v. Gilmore,
37 N. H. 410.

The statute of Iowa permitting attachments and garnish-
ments, and the sale of property thereunder, is not of itself
broad enough to authorize the attachment and sale of railway
property necessary in the discharge of its public duties.
Michigan C. R. Co. v. C. & M. L. 8. R. Co., 1 Ill. App. 399;
Connery v. R. Co., 92 Minnesota, 20; Shore & Bro. v. B. &
0. R. R. Co., 76 8. C. 472; Seibels v. Northern Cent. Ry.
Co., 61 S. E. Rep. (8. C.) 435; Wall v. Railway Co., 64 L.
R. A. (W. Va.) 501; Railway Co. v. Forest, 95 Wisconsin, 80,

supra.
Under the common law no such rights exist, and where
the right is claimed under a statute, the statute must be

164 OCTOBER TERM, 1909.
Argument for Defendant in Error. 217 U.S.

specific in its provisions with reference to the attachment,
seizure and sale of railway property. Railway Co. v. Forest,
95 Wisconsin, 80; Commissioners v. Tommey, 115 U. 8. 122;
Wall v. Railway Co., 64 L. R. A. 506.

Even if ordinarily garnishment proceedings would confer
rights and create a lien in favor of the plaintiff, jurisdiction
could not be thus obtained in this case, because under con-
tracts with the defendant the garnishees had the sole right to
possession and use of the cars until returned to the defendant
in the usual course of operation. Drake on Attachment, 3d
ed., 462; Wall v. Ry. Co., 52 W. Va. 485; Michigan C. R. R.
Co. v.C. & M. L. S. R. Co., 1 Til. App. 399; Connery v. Ry.
Co., 92 Minnesota, 20; Johnson v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 145
Fed. Rep. 249; Johnsor v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 69 Atl.
Rep. 288; Seibels v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co., 61 8. E. Rep.
435.

The Interstate Commerce Act enjoining upon railway com-
mon carriers the duty of providing and establishing through
routes, and the railway act of Congress authorizing and em-
powering steam railroads to provide and furnish connections
and through transportation, create a distinction between
‘water craft engaged in interstate commerce and railway com-
panies so engaged as to the right of foreign attachment. The
St. Louis, 48 Fed. Rep. 312; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago Ry.
Co., 163 U. S. 564.

The garnishees were indebted to the defendant only for
their proportionate share of earnings on account of interstate
shipments, and to allow garnishment of the same would burden
and impede interstate commerce to the same effect as the
actual seizure and attachment of the carrier’s cars.

As to the law in regard to garnishment, see Drake on At-
tachment, 3d ed., § 474; Shinn on Attachment, 2d ed., §§ 490,
491, 494; Railroad Co. v. Maggard, 39 Pac. Rep. 985. See,
also, Central Trust Co. v. Ry. Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 685; Aye v.
Lidscomb, 21 Pick. 263; Gold v. Ry. Co., 1 Gray, 424; Singer
v. Fleming, 39 Nebraska, 679-686; Drake v. Ry. Co., 89 Michi-

DAVIS v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. 165
217 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

gan, 168; Railway Co. v. Smith, 19 L. R. A. (Miss.) 597; Mc-
Sham v. Knox, 114 N. W. Rep. (Minn.) 955.

Special appearances are allowable under the state practice
of Iowa where the objection is that service was unauthorized.
Wilson v. Stripe, 4 G. G. Rep. (Ia.) 551; Hastings v. Pheniz,
79 Iowa, 394; Crox v. Allen, 91 Lowa, 462; Chittenden v. Hobbs,
9 Iowa, 417; Murray v. Wilcox, 122 Iowa, 188; Cibula v. Pitts
Co., 48 Iowa, 528.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.

This case presents a question of jurisdiction arising from the
levy in attachment proceedings on freight cars alleged to have
been engaged, when attached, in interstate commerce. The
case is here on certificate.

Plaintiff in error, as executor of the estate of Frank E.
Jandt, brought an action against the Cleveland, Cincinnati,
Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company for causing the death of
Jandt, a statute of Illinois giving such an action to the personal
representative of a person whose death has been caused by
“wrongful act, neglect or default.” The cause of action arose
in Illinois. The action was brought, however, in the District
Court of Woodbury County, State of Iowa, and under the
laws of the latter State writs of attachment and garnishment
were issued and levied upon certain cars of the C. C. C. & St.
L. Ry. Co., in the possession of the other defendants in error,
referred to hereafter as the garnishee companies. Notice of
garnishment was duly served on the garnishee companies, and
each of them filed answers. Plaintiff in the action, and we will
so refer to him, controverted by proper pleadings the answers,
and demanded that evidence be taken on the issues joined.

The original notice was served on the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry.
Co., at its principal place of business in the State of Ohio; also
notice of attachment and garnishment. It filed a petition for
removal of the action to the Circuit Court of the United States
for the Northern District of Iowa, Western Division. Its peti-

166 OCTOBER TERM, 1909.
Opinion of the Court. 217 U.S.

tion alleged that it was a corporation duly formed and organ-
ized under the laws of Indiana, and that the plaintiff was a
citizen of Iowa. The petition was granted and the case duly
removed to the Circuit Court of the United States. On the
second of October, 1905, the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., filed a
motion, which was denominated a motion to quash and set
aside service, in which it stated that it appeared specially for
the purpose of the motion only, “to quash and set aside the
service of attachment and garnishment attempted to be made
in the cause by plaintiff against the defendant’s property.”
The motion was supported by an affidavit. The affidavit
stated that the company was incorporated under the laws
of Indiana and Ohio, and conducted and operated lines of
railway in those States and in Illinois, with its principal
place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio; that it was not in-
corporated in Iowa, and had no agent or agency of any char-
acter in that State; that it was a common carrier of freight
and passengers, and in the carrying on of such business it
owned and operated cars for the transportation of freight
and merchandise through the various States; that in the
conduct of such business it had arrangements, contracts and
agreements with various connecting railroad companies doing
business as common carriers, including all of the railway
companies attached and garnisheed in the action by plaintiff,
under which those companies accepted from it, at points on
its line of road, its cars loaded with goods and merchandise
destined for various points on their respective lines, to be
transported through the various States to destinations, con-
stituting interstate shipments of commerce. It was stated
that it was provided in the agreement that such connecting
carriers should have the right to reload the cars received by
them, and so use the same in returning them to the place
where received, and that in all cases the cars of the company
were to be returned to it in the usual and ordinary course of
transit as soon as the nature and character of the business
would permit. It was further stated that under the laws

DAVIS v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. 167
217 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

of Congress the company was bound to furnish cars so loaded
to be transported continuously from one State to another
w:.uout being unloaded, and that under the same laws con-
necting carriers were bound to receive the same and transport
them from one State to another. That in pursuance of the
agreements and laws of Congress the cars attached were
delivered by the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. to the other com-
panies, and so received by them; that the cars were part of
the company’s rolling stock, and were necessary to enable it
to perform its duties as a common carrier; that by reason of
the commerce clause of the national Constitution and of the
Interstate Commerce Act the cars could not be levied upon;
that the company had not been served personally or by pub-
lication, and had not appeared in the action to any writ issued
in the cause. It was further stated that none of the garnishee
companies was indebted to the company, and that any ac-
counts which might be due from the garnisheed companies
were only by reason of the contracts and agreements for the
use of the cars, as heretofore stated, under which the permits
for the use of the cars were arranged between the companies
“by wheelage or mileage of such cars, and were constantly
and hourly changed from bills due one company to bills due
the other company, which bills were satisfied and settled by
such exchange of service and use of each other’s cars. And
such agreements and contracts are to be discharged, satisfied
and settled only in the city of Chicago and State of Illinois,
where the same are made, and such accounts, or debts, if any,
in favor of this defendant, have no situs in the State of Iowa.”
The affidavit was supplemented by two others.

Plaintiff filed a “resistance” to the motion to quash and
to the motion of the garnishee companies, and alleged that a
special appearance was “unwarranted and unauthorized by

law,” and that as the purpose sought by the motion of the
defendant company could only be had by a general appear-
ance the special appearance should be construed to be such
and subject the “ person of the defendant as well as the prop-

168 OCTOBER TERM, 1909.
Opinion of the Court. 217 U.S.

erty actually attached, and the property and money of the
defendant sought to be reached by garnishment proceedings
to the jurisdiction of the court.” The ground of this con-:
clusion was stated, with some repetition, to be that the special
appearance was not for the purpose of raising any question of
lack of notice, or notice of defect or irregularity of process,
but to contest the right to attach property by evidence out-
side the record of the case, and required the court to pass
upon the merits of the attachment. Plaintiff denied that the
property attached was engaged in interstate commerce or in
the transportation of interstate commerce at the time they
were attached, that they were not in use at the time they
were attached, but were standing empty upon the tracks of
the railway companies in whose possession they were found,
and denied the existence of the agreements and arrange-
ments between the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. and the other
companies in regard to the cars and that no contractual rules
existed between them, that the cars were not necessary either
to that company or to the other companies to enable them
to perform their duties as common carriers, and alleged that
they were subject to attachment as other personal property.
It was stated that the garnishee companies had no interest
in the attached cars, and none of them had served notice of
interest or ownership on the plaintiff nor on the sheriff.
The answers of five of the garnishee companies denied in-
debtedness to the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., averred the exist-
ence of agreements as to the cars substantially as set out by
that defendant, also their duties as common carriers under
the acts of Congress, and that the cars were in their possession
in pursuance of the agreements with the defendant, and were
to be returned empty or loaded in the usual and customary
course of business. The other companies also denied indebt-
edness to the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., and in effect set up
the defense that the cars were in interstate commerce business.
On the twenty-second of May, 1906, the court sustained
the motion to quash the judgment and discharge the gar-

DAVIS v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. 169
217 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

nishees thereunder. On June 6 “the court” (we quote from
the record) “rendered further judgment, dismissing the said
cause of action as to said principal defendant, on the ground
that the court had no jurisdiction of the defendant or the
attached property of the defendant, and taxed the costs in
the case to the plaintiff.”

The time for the allowance and filing of the bill of exceptions
was extended to October 28, 1906, and on the twenty-eighth
of September it was allowed, the order reciting as the date
“being one of the regular days of the May A. D. 1906 term
of said court.” The bill of exceptions also recited that it was
submitted to the court, with a prayer that it “be signed and
certified by the judge, and approved by him and made a part
of the record in said cause, preparatory to the prosecution
of a writ of error from the said Circuit Court of the United
States to the Supreme Court of the United States.” It con-
cludes us follows:

“And the court having examined said transcript of the
record, papers and proceedings, hereby certifies that the
same contains the entire record in said cause, including the
plaintiffs petition, the answers of the garnishees, the defend-
ant’s motion to quash and set aside service and the plaintiff’s
resistance thereto, and all of the proceedings had thereunder
in reference thereto, including the opinion, orders and judg-
ment of the court thereon, and the exceptions of the plaintiff
thereto, and all of the record submitted to the court upon
which the judgment herein was rendered.

“On consideration whereof the court does allow the writ
of error upon the plaintiff giving bond according to law in
the sum of $500, which shall operate as a supersedeas bond.

“And in this case, I, the undersigned, judge of the Circuit
Court of the United States in and for the Northern District of
Iowa, Western Division, further hereby certify that in sus-
taining the motion to quash the attachment and discharging
the garnishees, and in dismissing the action as to the principal
defendant, and taxing the costs to the plaintiff, the sole ques-

170 OCTOBER TERM, 1909.

Opinion of the Court. 217 U.S.

tion considered and determined by the court was that the
court had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or
of the property involved, and that the appearance of the
principal defendant as shown by the record was a special and
not a general appearance, and that the same did not subject
said principal defendant and its property to the jurisdiction
of the court.

“This certificate is made conformable to the act of Con-
gress of March 3, 1891, chapter 317, and the opinion filed
herein is made a part of the record, and will be certified and
sent up as part of the proceeding, together with this cer-
tificate.”’

For the opinion of the court, see 146 Fed. Rep. 403.

A writ of error was sued out from the Circuit Court of
Appeals, according to the admission of counsel, though there
is nothing in the record to show it, which writ was dismissed.
156 Fed. Rep. 775.

A motion is made to dismiss the writ of error, and in sup-
port of the motion it is urged (1) that the certificate as to
jurisdiction was not granted during the term at which the
judgment was rendered; (2) that the writ of error was not
perfected in time as required by law, in that the writ and
certificate were. allowed on the twenty-eighth of September,
1906, and were not presecuted in this court until April, 1908;
(3) that the certificate is not sufficient in law nor proper in
form, in that it does not state any facis or propositions of
law upon which the question of the court’s lack of jurisdiction
rested; (4) that the jurisdiction of the court as a Federal court
was not put in issue; (5) that the case having been taken to
the Circuit Court of Appeals and there decided that the writ
of error should be to that court and not to the Cireuit Court,
the latter court, it is urged, having lost jurisdiction of the
case; (6) there is no certificate of a jurisdictional question in
the order allowing the writ of error.

The first and second grounds in support of the motion to
dismiss are based upon a misapprehension of the record. The

-

DAVIS v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. 171

217 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

term at which the judgment was rendered had not expired
when the certificate of jurisdiction was made, and the writ
of error was allowed on the eighteenth of March, 1908, not
on September 28, 1906, as contended by defendants in error.

The grounds of the motion based on the form or sufficiency
of the certificate are not tenable.’ Even if we should admit,
which we do not, that the certificate is not, as it is contended,
in proper form, the record shows clearly that. the only matter
tried and decided in the Circuit Court was one of jurisdiction.
This is sufficient. United States v. Larkin, 208 U. 8. 333, 339.

The other grounds urged to support the motion to dismiss
all depend upon the proposition whether the question of the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court as a Federal court was pre-
sented. If so, the writ of error from the Circuit Court of
Appeals is no bar to the present writ of error. Excelsior
W. P. Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co., 185 U. 8. 282; United States
v. Larkin, supra. And if so, the way is clear to s decision
of the question on the merits.

As we have shown, the Circuit Court decided that it had
no jurisdiction over either the person or the property of the
principal defendant, the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. The first,
non-jurisdiction over the person, depending, as the court con-
sidered, upon the second, non-jurisdiction over the property,
as we understand the oninion. And this view of it the Circuit
Court of Appeals took.

The latter court stated the questions to be, “Was the
defendant’s appearance to contest the validity of the judg-
ments and garnishments a general one? Were the cars and
credits of the defendant subject to judgment and garnish-
ment? In other words, did the trial court secure such do-
minion over person or property by appearance or process as
authorized it to proceed to trial of the action and render a
valid judgment upon the issues involved? The trial court
answered them in the negative and dismissed the action for
the want of jurisdiction. In respect to the essential char-
acter of these questions, they are not distinguishable from

172 OCTCBER TERM, 1909.
Opinior of the Court. 217 U.S.

one of the legality of the service of summons upon a defend-
ant. They do not pertain to the merits of the case, and did
not arise during the progress of the trial. They lay at the
threshold, aud upon an affirmative answer depended the
power of the court to hear and decide the cause. In legal
phraseology that power is termed ‘jurisdiction.’ It is none
the less a jurisdictional matter in the case of judgment and
garnishment of the property of a non-resident because the
power of the court to proceed to trial depends in the absence
of the defendant upon the lawful seizure of his property.
The question of jurisdiction was decided in favor of the
defendant, and the decision disposed of the case.” For these
propositions the court cited Board of Trade v. Hammond
Elevator Co., i98 U. S. 428; United States v. Jahn, 155 U. S.
109; St. Lowis Cotton Compress Co. v. American Cotton Co.,
125 Fed. Rep. 196; and, as we have seen, dismissed the case
on the ground that this court alone had the power to review
the decision of the Circuit Court. We concur in the views of
the Circuit Court of Appeals, for which also may be cited
Kendall v. American Artomatic Loom Co., 198 U. S. 477.
The motion to dismiss is denied.

The ruling of the Circuit Court dismissing the action is at-
tacked upon the grounds, (1) that the appearance of the C. C.
C. & St. L. Ry. Co. was a general appearance, and, being so,
the railway company submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the
court, “regardless of the seizure of the attached property:”
(2) that the property was subject to attachment.

1. It is not controverted that, if the properi* was subject to
attachment, the procedure prescribed by the law: of Iowa was
duly observed and hence, it is contended, that the property
having been seized under the jurisdiction of the court under
valid regular process, the motion to quash the attachment was
based on matters dehors the record, going to the jurisdiction
of the court over the subject-matter of the action, and the
court had jurisdiction over the person of the railway company.
“A special appearance,” it is contended, “can never serve a

DAVIS v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. 173
217 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

dual or triple purpose, but is only allowed for the sole purpose
of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of
the defendant.”

The ruling of the Circuit Court, we think, was broader than
plaintiff conceives it to have been. It appears from the record
that the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. was a corporation of Indiana
and Ohio, and that certain of its freight cars were attached in
Iowa in the hands of the garnishee companies, and that there
were certain credits due to it from some of the latter com-
panies, on account of interstate commerce freight. In other
words, it fairly appears upon the face of the complaint in the
action and the attachment papers that the cars had been sent
into the State in the transportation of interstate commerce. It
is true, it was also contended, that an issue was presented by
the affidavits upor the motion to quash as to what contractual
arrangements existed between the company and the other
companies as tu the right of the latter companies to reload the
cars and so return them, but there was no dispute that it was
their duty to receive them. Besides, the bill of exceptions con-
tains the following: “No evidence is s:bmitted by the plaintiff
in opposition to the motion of defendant to quash the attach-
ment, or in support of its pleading controverting the answer of
the several garnishees, and the matters are submitted upon the
record, including such motion and admission of the pleadings.”

The question, therefore, was submitted to the court whether
the cars, under the circumstances, were engaged in interstate
commerce when they were aitached, and the court considered
it. to be immaterial that the cars had not started on a return
trip, s.ying that: “The vars of defendant when brought into
the State of Iowa to complete an interstate shipment of prop-
erty were being used in interstatc commerce, and were being so
used while waiting, at least, a reasonable time to be loaded
for the return trip.”

The court further decided that debts, if any, which were due
from the garnishee companies to the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
for its share of the price of carriage were “as much a part of

174 OCTOBER TERM, 1909.

Opinion of the Court. 217 U.S.

interstate commerce, as defined by the Supreme Court, as the
actual carriage of their property.”

2. The next contention of plaintiff is that the appearance of
the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. was a general appearance and sub-
mitted its person to the jurisdiction of the court. In other
words, it is contended that the person over whom: personal
jurisdiction has not been obtained cannot appear specially to
set aside the attachment of his property, which we must as-
sume in order to completely exhibit the contention, is valid.
We cannot concur in the contention. It is supported, it is
true, by some cases, but it is opposed by more. Drake on At-
tachments, § 112, and cases cited. The stronger reasoning we
think too is against the contention. A court without personal
service can acquire no jurisdiction over the person, and when
it attempts to assert jurisdiction over property it should be
open to the defendant to specially appear to contest its control
over such property; in other words to contest the ground of its
jurisdiction. Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476; Railway Co. v.
Denton, 146 U.S. 206; Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518,
523; Railway Co. v. Brow, 164 U.S. 271, 278.

The appearance of the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. was not to
object to the subject-matter of the action, as it is contended by
plaintiff. The subject-matter of the action is a demand for
damages, which can only be prosecuted to efficient judgment
and be satisfied out of the property attached. Clark v. Wells,
203 U. S. 164. The jurisdiction of the court, therefore, de-
pended upon the attachment, and the appearance to set that
aside was an appearance to cbject to the jurisdiction. In other
words, the defendant was only in court through its property,
and it appeared specially to show that it was improperly in
court.

These contentions being disposed of, we are brought to the
question whether the cars were “immune from judicial proc-
ess”’ because engaged in interstate commerce. The question
has come up in several of the state courts and differc at views
have been taken. The question has been answered in the

DAVIS v. C. C. ©. & ST. L. RY. 175
217 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

affirmative in Michigan C. R. Co. v. C. & M. L. 8. R. Co., 1
Ill. App. 399; Connery v. R. R. Co., 92 Minnesota, 20; Shore &
Bro. v. B. & O., 76 8. C. 472; Seibels v. Northern Central Ry.
Co., 618. E. Rep. 435; Railway Co. v. Forest, 95 Wisconsin, 80;
Wall v. N. & W. R. R. Co., 52 W. Va. 485. A negative answer
has been pronounced in the following cases: De Rochemont v.
N. Y.C. & N. R. R. Co., 71 Atl. Rep. (N. Y.) 868; Southern
Flour & Grain Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 127 Georgia, 626; Southern
Ry. Co. v. Brown, 62 8. E. Rep. (Ga.) 177; Cavanaugh Bros. v.
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 72 Atl. Rep. 694; See also Humphreys
v. Hopkins, 81 California, 551. Boss v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry.,
72 Atl. Rep. 694, may be assigned to the list of cases giving a
negative answer. In that case there was an attachment of
credits or funds representing the sending carrier’s part of
transportation charges on interstate freight. The attachment
was sustained. In Woll v. N. & W. R. R. Co. the levy was
upon cars which were unloading. In the case in 1 Ill. App. the
condition or situation of the cars does not clearly appear. In
the other cases the cars were not in use when attached. In
most of the cases there is a full and able discussion of the prin-
ciples involved. In Humphreys v. Hopkins it was taken for
granted that the cars were subject to process, the case going off
on another point.

The answer to the question is, therefore, certainly ot
obvious, and counsel, realizing it, have pressed many con-
siderations on our attention. Their arguments result in cer-
tain contentions. The plaintiff's contention is, that even
though the cars in question had been or were to be used in in-
terstate commerce, their attachment was not a regulation of
such commerce, and that they were as legally subject to at-
tachment as the property of any other non-resident. The con-
tention of the defendants is an exact antithesis of that of plain-
tiff. It is that the state laws cannot be permitted to impede
or impair interstate traffic or the usefulness of the facilities for
such traffic. And, further, that the provisions of the Interstate
Commerce Act, providing for the establishment of through

176 OCTOBER TERM, 1909.

Opinion of the Court. 217 U.S.

routes, and § 5258 of the Revised Statutes, providing for the
connection of railroads, exempt the cars from attachment.

In our discussion we may address ourselves to the conten-
tion of defendants. They do not contend that the laws of the
State have the purpose to interfere with the interstate com-
merce, or are directly contrary to the acts of Congress. They
do contend, however, that “to permit the instrumentalities
used in the interchange of traffic by railway common carriers
to be seized on process from various state courts does directly
burden and impede interstate traffic within the inhibition of
the acts of Congress.’ In other words, that the acts of Con-
gress constitute a declaration of exemption of railroad prop-
erty from attachment, and, of course, from execution as well,
by reason of their provisions for continuity of transportation.

This can only result if there is incompatibility between the
obligations a railroad may have to its creditors and the obli-
gations which it may have to the public, either from the na-
ture of its service or under the acts of Congress. Obligations
it surely will have to creditors, inevitable even in providing
equipment for its duties—inevitable in its performance of
them. It would seem, therefore, that the contentions of the
defendants are but deductions from the broader proposition
that all of the property of the railroad company is put apart
in a kind of civil sanctuary. And one case (Wail v. Railroad
Company, supra) seems to give this extent to the exemption.
Indeed, the decision in the case at bar seems to do so, the court
holding, as we have seen, that the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.’s
share of the compensation for carriage was as much a part of
interstate commerce as the actual carriage of property. A
still broader proposition under the contention might be urged.
If the property have such character that all obligations of the
company must yield to the public use or to the obligations im-
posed by Congress, the railroad company itself, it might be
contended, cannot burden its property and that its property is
taken from it as an asset of credit, the means, it may be, of
performing the very duties enjoined upon it, and the anomaly

Z Ts
DAVIS v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. 177

217 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

will be presented of the duties it is to perform becoming an
obstacle to acquiring the meaas of performing them. Indeed,
the further consequence might be saic to follow that the rolling
stock of a railroad is exempt from taxation, at least so far as
taxation might be attempted to be enforced against the rolling
stock. We realize that a proposition may be generally ap-
plicable and yet involve embarrassment when pushed to a
logical extreme. If this be so of the contentions of defendant,
it may be so of the counter contentions which would subject
the cars of a railroad company to attachment process, however
engaged or wherever situate.

It is very certain that when Congress enacted the Interstate
Commerce Law it did not intend to abrogate the attachment
laws of the States. It is very certain that there is no conscious
purpose in the laws of the States to regulate, directly or indi-
rectly, interstate commerce. We may put out of the case,
therefore, as an element an attempt of the State to exercise
control over interstate commerce in excess of its power. In-
deed, the questions in this case might arise upon process issued
out of the Circuit Court of the United States under the Federal
statutes. For, by §§915 and 916 of the Revised Statutes,
remedies “by attachment or other process,” before judgment,
and “‘by exetuticn or otherwise,” after judgment, are given
litigants in common law causes in the Circuit and District
Courts of the United States.

The questions in the case, therefore, depend for their solu-
tion upon the interpretation of Federal laws. May the laws of
the States for the enforcement of debts (laws which we need
not stop to vindicate as necessary foundations of credit and
because they give support to commerce, state and interstate),
and the Federal laws which permit or enjoin continuity of
transportation, so far incompatible that the provisions of the
latter must be construed as displacing the former? We do not
think so. Section 5258 of the Revised Statutes is permissive,
not imperative. It removed the “trammels interposed by
State enactments or by existing laws of Congress” to the

VOL. CcXvi1I—12

178 OCTOBER TERM, 1909.
Opinion of the Court. 217 U.S.

powers of railroad companies to make continuous lines of
transportation. Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584, 589,
The Interstate Commerce Act, however, has a different char-
acter. It restricts the powers of the railroads. It regulates
interstate railroads and makes it unlawful for them, by any
“means or devices,” to prevent “the carriage of freight from
being continuous from the place of shipment to the place of
destination.” '

The Interstate Commerce Law therefore is directed agains‘
the acts of railroad companies which may prevent continuity
of transportation. Section 5258 of the Revised Statutes was
directed against the trammels of state enactments then exist-
ing or which might be attempted. In neither can there be
discerned a purpose to relieve the railroads from any obliga-
tions to their creditors or take from their creditors any remedial
process provided by the laws of the State, and, as we have
seen, provided by Federal law as well. May it be said that
such result follows from the use of property in the public serv-
ice? A number of cases may be cited against such conten-
tion. We have already pointed out what might be contended
as its possible if not probable consequences. In a recent case
in this court a lien imposed under the law of Michigan upon a
vessel to be used in domestic and foreign trade was sustained.
To the contention that the enforcement of the lien while the
vessel was engaged in interstate commerce was unlawful and

* Sec. 7. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to
the provisions of this act to enter into any combination, contract, or
agreement, expressed or implied, to prevent, by change of time sched-
ule, carriage in different cars, or by other means or devices, the carriage
of freights from being continuous from the place of shipment to the
place of destination; and no break of bulk, stoppage, or interruption
made by such common carrier shall prevent the carriage of freights
from being and being treated as one continuous carriage from the place
of shipment to the place of destination, unless such break, stoppage, or
imterruption was made in good faith for some necessary purpose, and
without any intent to avoid or unnecessarily interrupt such continuous
carriage, or to evade any of the provisions of this act.

DAVIS v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY.. 179
217 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

void in view of the exclusive control of Congress over the sub-
ject, we answered: “ But it must be remembered that concern-
ing contracts not maritime in their nature, the State has
authority to make laws and enforce liens, and it is no valid
objection that the enforcement of such laws may prevent or
obstruct the prosecution of a voyage of an interstate charac-
ter. The laws of the States enforcing attachment and execu-
tion in cases cognizable in state courts have been sustained
and upheld. Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co., 119
U.S. 388. The State may pass laws enforcing the rights of a
citizen which affect interstate commerce, but fall short of
regulacing such commerce in the sense in which the Constitu-
tion gives exclusive jurisdiction to Congress. Sherlock et al. v.
Alling, 93 U. 8. 99, 103; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. 8. 1, 23;
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U.S. 477.” The Winne-
bago, 205 U. S. 354, 362.

The interference with interstate commerce by the enforce-
ment of the attachment laws of a State must not be exag-
gerated. It can only be occasional and temporary. The
obligations of a railroad company are tolerably certain, and
provisions for them can be easily made. Their sudden asser-
tion can be almost instantly met; at any rate, after short delay
and without much, if any, embarrassment to the continuity of
transportation. However, the pending case does not call for a
very comprehensive decision on the subject. We only decide
that the cars situated as this record tends to show that they
were when attached, and the amounts due from the garnishee
companies to the C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., were not exempt
from process under the state laws, and that the court had,
therefore, jurisdiction of them and through them of the C. C.
C. & St. L. Ry. Co.

Judgment reversed and the cause remanded with directions to
proceed in accordance with this opinion.

Mr. Justice Hotes took no part in the decision.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386001_0081%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.