Plummer v. Hatton
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1952, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Holtberg v. Bommersbach (Minn. 1952)
- Donigan v. Donigan (Minn. 1952)
- Curran v. Nash (Minn. 1947)
- Sellars v. Sellars (Minn. 1936)
- Pye v. Magnuson (Minn. 1929)
- Toncray v. Toncray (Tenn. 1910)
- Silver Camp Mining Co. v. Dickert (Mont. 1904)
- Ireland v. Adair (N.D. 1903)
- Cabanne v. Graf (Minn. 1902)
- Thurston v. Thurston (Minn. 1894)
- Burke v. Baldwin (Minn. 1892)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to enforce a pecuniary liability against a nonresident, where process is constructively served by publication, and he does not voluntarily appear, the proceedings, although in form in personam, are, in effect, in rem. It is only by attaching-property that the court acquires jurisdiction, and then only to the-extent of the property attached. The judgment'in such a case would have no effect beyond the property attached. No general execution could be issued for any balance unpaid after the attached property is exhausted. No suit could be maintained on such a judgment, nor could it be used as evidence in any other proceeding not affecting ■ the attached property. The original cause of action would not be-merged in it. Any future suit to recover any balance due after the-attached property is exhausted would have to be brought on the original cause of action. It follows that, if no property is attached, the-
It affirmatively appears on the face of the record that such were the facts in the action before the justice of the peace in Northfield. It follows that the judgment in that case was void, and constitutes: no bar to another suit on the same cause of action. 1878 G. S. ch. 65, § 75, which is merely a rule of evidence, has no bearing upon the case.
Order affirmed.
(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 460.)
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.