Jaster v. Currie

Background

A person who had won a judgment in Ohio sued in Nebraska to enforce that Ohio judgment. The defendant in the Nebraska case said he had previously been sued in Nebraska for the same matter and that the plaintiff had served a notice to take his deposition in Ohio on September 5, 1899. The defendant traveled to Ohio for the deposition, spent the night at his father’s house, and was served with the Ohio writ on September 7. He said the deposition notice was only a ruse to get him into Ohio so he could be served. An Ohio court had refused to set aside service, and a Nebraska court later accepted the defendant’s fraud argument and refused to enforce the Ohio judgment.

Reasoning

The main question was whether an otherwise lawful method of getting someone into another State becomes unlawful just because the person who used it hoped to get a chance to serve process. Justice Holmes assumed, for argument, that a fraud defense could be raised and that service would otherwise be valid. He pointed out there was no false statement about facts or motives; the notice and deposition were true and lawful. The Court explained that motive alone usually does not turn lawful acts into fraud, and that the case did not resemble situations where intent makes an act wrongful. For those reasons the Court found the Nebraska ruling wrong and reversed.

Real world impact

The decision means states should generally honor out-of-state judgments when service was obtained by truthful, lawful steps, even if the plaintiff hoped those steps would produce an opportunity to serve. It limits claims that a defendant was tricked into another State when the underlying notice and actions were true and permitted.