Herbert v. Bicknell

Background

A creditor sued to collect a debt in a Honolulu district court by garnishing money owed to the defendant. A copy of the summons was left at the place the return called the defendant’s last and usual residence while the defendant was absent from the Territory. The defendant did not appear and the court entered judgment against the seized fund on July 2, 1909. Months later the defendant, who said he had moved his domicile to Australia and briefly returned earlier in the year, appeared and asked the court to set aside the judgment for insufficient service under the Constitution and Hawaii law. The lower courts refused that request and affirmed the judgment.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the way the summons was delivered after garnishment satisfied the statute and constitutional notice requirements. The opinion treats the relevant statute (§ 2114) as allowing service on the garnishee and, in the defendant’s circumstances, leaving a copy where he last had stopped counted as leaving it at his last and usual abode under that law. The Court relied on the long-standing principle that seizure and statutory notice tied to garnishment can put an owner on notice, cited prior cases that give similar effect to seizure, and observed that the defendant knew of the action before the time for a writ of error had passed but did not pursue effective relief.

Real world impact

The decision means creditors who follow the statute can enforce garnishments against funds in the Territory even when the owner lives abroad, provided the statutory method of notice is used. Owners who briefly visit or who live far away must act quickly to challenge defaults, because summary proceedings for small debts move rapidly and short notice may not invalidate enforcement.