ROBARGE v. CENTRAL VERMONT R. R. CO.

ROBARGE v. CENTRAL VERMONT R. R. CO. N. Y. Supreme Court, Fourth District, Special Term ; January, 1887. 1. pleading statute of another State.] In pleading the statutes of another State, it is sufficient,- on demurrer, under Code Gin. Pro., § 530, to aver their legal effect, without setting them forth at length. If more information is desired, the remedy is by motion to make the pleading more definite and certain. 2. Trustee process in another State; judgment.] It seems, that a proceeding by trustee process in another State, to reach a claim of the defendant upon a third person, is, where no personal service of the trustee writ is made upon'the defendant within that State, a proceeding in rem against the debt, but not conclusive upon the defendant anywhere as to his indebtedness to the parties who prosecuted the proceeding. 3. The same ; payment by trustee.] But where a corporation created by and having its principal place of business in another State, is indebted for work done upon its property, though done in this State, the situs of the debt is in such other State; and if the proceeding by trustee process is taken according to.its laws, against the debt, and the corporation is compelled to pay to" the parties prosecuting the proceeding, it cannot be compelled to pay again; but such payment will be a defense to an action in this State against the corporation for the debt. Demurrer to partial defense. William Eobarge brought this action against the Central Vermont Eailroad Company, to recover $50.62 for work and labor performed by plaintiff for defendant upon its railroad in this State. The action was commenced October 22, 1886, by personal service of the summons and complaint upon William T. Short, managing agent of the defendant, at Malone, in this State. Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Vermont, having its office and principal place of business at St. Albans in that State, and at the several times mentioned in the pleadings, operated a railroad within this State, as appears by the complaint and answer herein. The defendant’s second partial defense to the action sets up that on September 6, 1886, the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $43.50, for work, being part of the amount mentioned in the complaint sued for in this action ; that on the day last mentioned an action was duly commenced before Henry C. Greene, Esq., a duly commissioned and qualified justice of the peace in the town of St. Albans, in the county of Franklin, in the state of Vermont, who had jurisdiction thereof by the laws of the State of Vermont, by Anson D. Stevens, William C. Stevens and Henry L. Burdick, partners in trade, under the firm name of Stevens & Burdick, of Malone, Hew York, as plaintiffs, against the plaintiff in this action, William Eobarge, to recover the sum of $200, by the issue of a trustee writ by said justice of the peace, a copy of which is attached to the answer, and forms a part thereof. It is further alleged in said defense that said writ was thereupon, and on said last mentioned day, duly served upon the defendant, the Central Vermont Eailroad Company, at St. Albans, in said State of Vermont, pursuant to the laws of said last mentioned State; that notice of said writ and action was thereupon, and before the commencement of this action, given by this defendant to the plaintiff herein. That by the laws of the State of Vermont, this defendant, the Central Vermont Eailroad Company, was required to appear in said action and disclose the amount in which it was indebted to the said William Eobarge, at the time of the service of the said writ upon it; and thereupon by virtue of the said laws, the said justice of the peace was required to adjudge the said company a trustee on account of the money due from it to said Eobarge, and to determine the amount which said trustee should pay on any judgment that might be recovered in said action against said Eobarge, and in case of default of such payment by the trustee, it was provided by such laws that execution should be issued directly against the goods and chattels of such trustee for the collection of such amount. That by the laws of the State of Vermont it is provided that in said action, unless the said Central Vermont Eailroad Company should appearand disclose the amount in which it was indebted to said William Eobarge, judgment should be given against said Central Vermont Eailroad Company, in favor of the plaintiffs in said action for the full amount claimed by them, and execution should be issued against said company to recover such amount out of the property of ■said company. That thereupon, and pursuant to the laws of the State of Vermont, this defendant, the Central Vermont Eailroad Company, duly appeared in said action before said Henry C. Gbeene, Esq., justice of the peace, aforesaid, at the time and place in said writ mentioned, and made disclosure as required by the laws of Vermont, viz., that it was indebted to the said William Eobarge, September 6, 1886, in the sum of $43.50. That such proceedings were subsequently duly had in said action, that judgment was duly rendered therein, in favor of the plaintiffs therein, against said William Robarge, for the sum of $109.55, and judgment was also rendered therein against the defendant the Central Vermont Railroad Company, as trustee, adjudging it to be a trustee for said Robarge on account of said money due from it to said Robarge, and determining the amount that it should pay as trustee upon the said judgment against said Robarge at $43.50, upon account of its indebtedness to said Robarge; and to prevent an execution therefor being issued against its goods and chattels aforesaid, it has so paid such sum upon said judgment against said Robarge as required by said judgment against it; all of which proceedings and payments were in accordance with and in pursuance of the laws of the State of Vermont; that by the laws of the State of Vermont, wages due to a principal debtor for work and labor performed by him for the trustee prior to the service of the trustee process, are not exempt from the provisions of the said laws relating to such trustee process. To this defense the plaintiff demurred, upon “ the ground that the same is insufScent in law upon the face thereof, and does not state facts suffieent to constitute a defense in this action.” Scanlon & Mears, for the plaintiff, demurring. Louis Hasbrouck, for the defendant, opposed. [MAJORITY — Tappan, J.] Tappan, J. [After stating the facts as above.]—It was said in Hogle v. Mott, MS., upon the authority of Holmes v. Broughton (10 Wend. 75), that the proceedings set up in the answer are unknown to the common law; and the defendant in his plea is bound, if the proceedings were authorized by the statute law of Vermont, to set forth the statute so that the court may see that the proceedings have been conformable thereto. The case last cited stated the rule as regards pleading the statutes of other States, under the system of pleading which existed before the enactment of the Code of Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure. This answer contains an averment corresponding to the legal effect of the laws of Vermont, without setting them forth at length. I think this is all that is required under the present Code of Civil Procedure. See Code Civ. Pro. § 530 ; Halstead v. Black, 17 Abb. Pr. 227; Barclay v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 6 Lans. 25. As is said in the case last cited, if the plaintiff desired more information respecting the laws of Vermont, which authorized the proceeding set up in the defense, his remedy was by motion to make the complaint more definite and certain. Code Civ. Pro. § 546 ; Bliss’ Code, and cases cited in notes to this section. We next come to consider the effect of the proceeding set up in the defense, upon the assumption that it was taken in conformity to the statute of Vermont. The allegations of the defense are not sufficient to show that there was ever personal service of the trustee writ upon the defendant, William Robarge, within the State of Vermont, and the proceeding is not in personam but in rem, against the wages duo from the defendant herein. Such a proceeding is not conclusive upon the defendant anywhere, as to his being indebted to the parties who prosecuted the proceeding. But if taken according to the laws of the State of Vermont, the proceeding is sufficient to protect the defendant, the Central Vermont Railroad Company, against a repayment of what it was lawfully compelled to pay, either in the State of Vermont or in any other State. The proceeding by trustee process in Vermont, to compel payment of a claim against a defendant, from a party indebted to the latter, is similar in its operation upon debts due to the defendant, to the attachment laws of other States. The defendant was a corporation created by .the laws of the State of Vermont, and having its principal place of business there, and the situs of a debt due from it was in that State. The defendant, the Central Vermont Railroad Company, and such debt, were subject to the jurisdiction of that State. It has been compelled to pay the amount set forth in this defense, and cannot justly bo compelled to pay it again (Embree v. Hanna, 5 Johns. 101; Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 N. Y. 508; cases cited in points of Sam’l Hand, 89 N. Y. 514, opin. 523, 524). Full faith and credit must be given in this State to such judicial proceedings in the State of Vermont (U. S. Const. art. 4, and case last above cited). See 2 Wade on Att. §§ 326, 362, 525.