Myer v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance

Bartol, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants, citizens of Maryland, sued out of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, an attachment on warrant against Gr. W. Bittinger & Brother as non-residents of Maryland, and who were residents of Chicago; and caused the attachment to be laid in the hands of the L., L. and Gr. Insurance Company as garnishee; the same being a corporation created by the laws of Great Britain, the service of the attachment process was made upon the agent of the Company in Baltimore, and its purpose was to attach funds alleged to be due from the Insurance Company to Bittinger & Bro., for a loss which occurred by the great fire in Chicago, upon goods of Bittinger & Brother in their store in Chicago; under a policy of insurance which had been issued by the Insurance Company at the office of its agent in Chicago.

Upon the return of the writ N. Eisendrath, a citizen of Chicago intervened by petition, claiming the insurance money, by virtue of an assignment to him from Bittinger & Bro.: and moved the Court to quash the sheriff’s return, making the Insurance Company garnishee. ⁶⁰⁰ The Company also, hy its counsel, made the same motion. The facts as we have recited them, being admitted, the Superior Court ordered the return to be quashed; and we think there can be no doubt or question of the correctness of the judgment. The Insurance Company was not liable to garnishment in this State, with respect to its liability upon the policy of insurance made to Bittinger & Brother. The Act of 1868, ch. 411, sec. 211, provides that, “suits against a foreign corporation, exercising franchises in this State, may be brought by a resident of this State, for any cause of action; and by a plaintiff, not a resident of tbis State, when the cause of action has arisen, or the subject of the action shall be situated in this State.” To bring a case within the first clause, the liability sought to be enforced must be a direct liability to the resident plaintiff, such is not the present case; there is no debt or liability of the Insurance Company to the appellants.

The object of this suit is to recover from the garnishee, the debt due the plaintiffs from Bittinger & Bro. In order to accomplish this result it is necessary to establish and enforce the payment of an alleged debt due from the company to Bittinger & Bro. We do not doubt that a foreign corporation exercising its franchises in this State, may be subjected to the process of garnishment, where it holds property or credits of the debtor, for which the debtor might sue in our