TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Christmas v. Biddle

Christmas versus Biddle

Christmas v. Biddle, 13 Pa. 223 (1850)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1850
Judges
Coulter
Citations
13 Pa. 223
Headnotes
A certificate of stock in a bank, in another State, sent to an individual here ■with, authority to sell it, is not subject to foreign attachment, under the lavrs of this State.
Summary
The Planters Bank of Mississippi was the owner of certain shares of stock of the Commercial Bank of Natchez. In 1843, it made an assigment to Mandeville, et al., in trust for creditors of certain property, among which are these shares. On the 5th of July, 1844, a certificate for some of these shares was issued to Henderson by the bank of the U. States, at Philadelphia, a transfer agent of the Commercial Bank. On the 16th of January, 1846, the plaintiff served a foreign attachment upon Biddle & Co., in an action on a judgment against the Planters Bank. In April, 1846, Henderson forwarded his certificate to Biddle & Co., brokers in Philadelphia, with directions to sell at a limited price. In his letter he asserted that he was but a trustee, and not personally interested. Biddle & Co. retained the certificate up to the trial of the sci. fa. against themselves as garnishees, not having disposed of the stock. The court non-suited the plaintiff.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Coulter

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Coulter, J.

The attachment process is a proceeding in rem, *224 and tbe matter and thing attached must be in the power and jurisdiction of the court. You might as well, by an ideal and constructive service on the person of a defendant resident in Mississippi, summon him to appear in our court, as to attach him to compel an appearance by attaching his bank stock in a bank located and established by law in Mississippi. This stock is held and transferable according to the law of its creation, the statute of Mississippi, on the books of the bank only, either in person by the holder, or by his attorney duly appointed. It will hardly be contended that lands in Mississippi could be attached, because the owner had sent on to this city his title deed with power to a broker to sell the same and raise money. Yet there is, in fact, no difference. It is the stock of the bank which is attached in this case, and the individual to whom the certificate of stock was sent with power to sell, is made the garnishee. Bank stock is made subject to levy and attachment, recently by our statutes; but, then, it is bank stock of our own State, subject to our own laws, and transferable by a judicial sale under them ; and not British, or French bank stock, or the bank stock of any other State, which, in this respect, is to be considered as a different sovereignty, and the property created by its laws must be considered subject to those laws, because its banks can exist in no other mode, nor in any other place than prescribed by its laws.

To hold the contrary would do absolute injustice to our own citizens, by making them accountable for the whole value of the stock which they were empowered to sell, inasmuch as they could not produce it to be sold on a fi. fa., and as a sale on such process would be an idle and void ceremony. Moreover, it would discourage commerce and trade, to hold that such a power to sell bank stock was attachable without being of any service to the attaching creditor, for the process would be wholly valueless and insufficient in Mississippi, to transfer the title to the stock in the Planters Bank of that State.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1904: 11909: 11923: 11928: 11933: 11938: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fritsch v. Buckman20 Pa. D. & C. 195 (1933)
  2. Moys v. Union Trust Co.119 A. 738 (Pa. 1923)
  3. Mills v. Jacobs200 A. 233 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1938)
  4. Cherkasky ex rel. Domsky v. Pride10 Pa. D. & C. 133 (1928)
  5. Glenny v. Boyd26 Pa. Super. 380 (1904)
  6. Wiener v. American Insurance Co. of Boston39 Pa. Super. 219 (1909)

Most recent

  1. Mills v. Jacobs200 A. 233 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1938)
  2. Fritsch v. Buckman20 Pa. D. & C. 195 (1933)
  3. Cherkasky ex rel. Domsky v. Pride10 Pa. D. & C. 133 (1928)
  4. Moys v. Union Trust Co.119 A. 738 (Pa. 1923)
  5. Wiener v. American Insurance Co. of Boston39 Pa. Super. 219 (1909)
  6. Glenny v. Boyd26 Pa. Super. 380 (1904)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list