## Facts

- Isaac N. Harris, a North Carolina resident, owed B. Balk (also of North Carolina) $180 on an unwritten loan obligation.
- Balk owed Jacob Epstein, a Maryland resident merchant, more than $300.
- While Harris was temporarily in Baltimore, Epstein filed a Maryland nonresident attachment action against Balk and garnished the debt Harris owed Balk.
- Harris was served in Maryland as garnishee and later executed an affidavit admitting the $180 debt and consenting, through counsel, to an order condemning the attached amount.
- A Maryland court entered judgment against Harris as garnishee for $180 in favor of Epstein, and Harris paid the judgment.
- Balk then sued Harris in North Carolina to recover the same $180; Harris pleaded the Maryland judgment and payment as a bar.
- North Carolina courts held Maryland lacked jurisdiction because the debt’s situs was in North Carolina and entered judgment for Balk.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland could constitutionally exercise jurisdiction to garnish Harris’s debt to Balk based on Harris’s temporary presence and service in Maryland.
2. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause required North Carolina to treat the paid Maryland garnishment judgment as discharging Harris’s debt to Balk.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the North Carolina judgment.
- Maryland had jurisdiction to attach and condemn the debt because Harris, the garnishee-debtor, was found and served within Maryland.
- A debt could be reached by garnishment wherever the debtor is subject to suit, even if the creditor and debtor are nonresidents and the obligation arose elsewhere.
- North Carolina was constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to the Maryland judgment; Harris’s payment under that judgment discharged the $180 obligation to Balk.
- Harris’s consent to the garnishment condemnation did not make the payment “voluntary” in a way that defeated full faith and credit protection where there was no defense and the attachment was lawful.
- The Court noted a potential limitation where a garnishee fails to give the creditor notice of the attachment, but found Balk had notice and did not contest in Maryland.

## Legal Principles

- A state may garnish a debt by serving process on the garnishee-debtor within the state; jurisdiction over the garnishee supports condemnation of the debt under the forum’s attachment law.
- For garnishment purposes, an intangible debt is treated as present where the debtor is present and amenable to suit (“debts follow the debtor”).
- Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, a valid judgment against a garnishee, once paid, must be recognized in other states as satisfaction of the underlying debt to the extent of the garnished amount.
- A garnishee’s consent to judgment does not defeat the discharge effect of a valid garnishment judgment when the creditor’s claim is legally attachable and the garnishee lacks a substantive defense.
- Lack of reasonable notice to the creditor of the foreign attachment may prevent the garnishee from using the garnishment judgment as a bar in later litigation over the same debt.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Maryland could garnish the debt Harris owed Balk because Harris was served in Maryland, and that the paid Maryland judgment had to be given full faith and credit in North Carolina as a discharge of the $180 debt, barring Balk’s later suit against Harris for the same obligation.


Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215 (1905)