Harris v. Balk

The developments in personal jurisdiction doctrine had implications for the exercise of quasi-in-rem and in-rem jurisdiction.  To understand those, we need to trace the history of the constitutional limits on quasi-in-rem jurisdiction.  We begin with an old case.  In some sense, Harris v. Balk is the Pennoyer v. Neff of quasi-in-rem jurisdiction, and Shaffer v. Heitner (the next case) is somewhat like the International Shoe of quasi-in-rem.

Harris, a resident of North Carolina, owed a debt to Balk, also of North Carolina, in the sum of $180. Balk allegedly owed Epstein, a resident of Maryland, the sum of over $300. On August 6, 1896, while Harris was in Baltimore for the purpose of purchasing merchandise, Epstein induced a Maryland court to "garnish" (meaning to exercise jurisdiction over) Harris’ debt to Balk. Harris was personally served with the writ of attachment and summons.  A writ of summons and a short declaration against Balk (as provided by the Maryland statute) were also posted on the courthouse door, as required by the law of Maryland.

Harris consented to a judgment for $180 and paid Epstein that amount, completed his Maryland business, and returned to North Carolina. On August 11, 1896, Balk sued Harris in a North Carolina state court to recover the $180 that he alleged that Harris owed him. Harris argued that the Maryland judgment against him, entitled to full faith and credit in North Carolina, was the full debt payment. The North Carolina trial court ruled in favor of Balk. The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed on the ground that the Maryland court obtained no jurisdiction to attach or garnish the debt due from Harris to Balk, because Harris was but temporarily in the state, and the debt was in North Carolina. The United States Supreme Court reversed.