|
|
Herbert v. Bicknell, 233 U.S. 70 (1914)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Herbert v. Bicknell, 233 U.S. 70 (1914)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 233 U.S. 60, click here.
Herbert v. Bicknell No. 269 Submitted March 12, 1914 Decided April 6, 1914 233 U.S. 70
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII
Syllabus
The Hawaiian Supreme Court having held that leaving a copy of the summons at the place where defendant last had stopped amounted to leaving it at his usual abode within § 2114, Rev.Laws of Hawaii, this Court will not disturb the judgment.
The law assumes that property is always in the possession of its owner in person or by agent, and proceeds on the theory that its seizure will inform him not only that it has been taken into custody but that he must look to any proceeding authorized by law upon such seizure for its condemnation and sale, and so held that an attachment and judgment under § 2114, Rev.Stat. Hawaii, does not, on account of its provisions for service of the summons by leaving it at his last known place of abode, deprive a nonresident of any rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714.
The existence of a garnishment statute is notice to the owner of claims that he must be ready to be represented in case the debt is attached.
In this case, a the defendant whose property was attached under § 2114, Rev.Stat. Hawaii, had knowledge of the attachment and judgment before the time for writ of error to the Supreme Court of the Territory had expired, he should have pursued that remedy and not suffered default and attempted to quash on the ground of want of due process in the service.
20 Haw. 132 affirmed.
The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment rendered by the courts of Hawaii and based on service of process under § 2114, Rev.Law of Hawaii, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Herbert v. Bicknell, 233 U.S. 70 (1914) in 233 U.S. 70 233 U.S. 71–233 U.S. 72. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2VC5E3B4K9P7GAA.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Herbert v. Bicknell, 233 U.S. 70 (1914), in 233 U.S. 70, pp. 233 U.S. 71–233 U.S. 72. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2VC5E3B4K9P7GAA.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Herbert v. Bicknell, 233 U.S. 70 (1914). cited in 1914, 233 U.S. 70, pp.233 U.S. 71–233 U.S. 72. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=2VC5E3B4K9P7GAA.
|