US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

HERBERT V. BICKNELL, 233 U. S. 70 (1914)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 233 U. S. 70 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Herbert v. Bicknell, 233 U.S. 70 (1914)

Herbert v. Bicknell

No. 269

Submitted March 12, 1914

Decided April 6, 1914

233 U.S. 70


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. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 233 U. S. 71

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. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 233 U. S. 72

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™