
    Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Joseph May.
    In an action to recover money due on contract, it is a sufficient defense to, show that the money sought to be recovered has been attached by process of garnishment duly issued by a court of a sister state, in an action there prosecuted against the plaintiff by his creditors, although it appear that the plaintiff and such creditors are all residents of this state.
    Motion for leave to file a petition in error to tbe District Court of Belmont county.
    Tbe original action was brought in tbe Court of Common Pleas of Belmont county, by tbe defendant in error, against tbe plaintiff in error, to recover on account of work and labor, etc., tbe sum of $109.24.
    Tbe defendant in that action set up, by way of answer,, that it was a corporation owning and operating a railroad through tbe States of West Virginia and Ohio; that certain creditors of tbe plaintiff bad sued the plaintiff, before-a justice of tbe peace in West Virginia, and bad therein attached tbe money due from tbe defendant to tbe plaintiff by due process of garnishment; that an order bad been made by said justice in said proceedings in attachment that the defendant should pay into that court the amount •due the plaintiff to satisfy said attaching creditors; that .said justice, under the laws of "West Virginia, in the matter had full jurisdiction, and that the judgments and orders made by said justice in the premises, remained in full force; that the moneys so attached, were the same sought to be recovered in the pending suit. It was also admitted in the .answer that the plaintiff and his creditors, plaintiffs in the .attachment proceedings in West Virginia, were all resi•dents and citizens of the State of Ohio.
    To this answer the plaintiff demurred, on the ground that the facts stated therein did not constitute a defense. 'The demurrer was sustained by the court, to which ruling the defendant excepted. Judgment was given for plaintiff".
    ' On petition in error, the District Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas.
    This proceeding is prosecuted to reverse both said judgments. The sustaining of the demurrer to the defendant’s .answer is assigned for ei’ror.
    
      J. H. Collins, for the motion:
    As to the effect of judicial proceedings of a sister state, see section 1, article 4, United States Constitution; United States Stat. 122; Story’s Com. on Con., sec. 1313; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wallace, 291; Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wallace, 140; Story on Conflict of Laws, 608, 609; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., secs. 540-543.
    -— Tollman, contra.
   By the Court.

The demurrer to the answer of the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas should have been ■overruled. The facts set up in the answer were a good defense to the action. The justice of the peace in West Virginia, having jurisdiction of the subject of the action .and of the parties, the order in attachment made upon the garnishee, was a valid appropriation of the moneys in his hands to the payment of the attaching creditor’s claims.

It is suggested that plaintiff’s creditors resorted to the-proceeding in attachment in West Virginia in order to evade the laws of Ohio in relation to exemptions in favor of their debtor. No question of that kind is before us,, and it is not necessary to determine now, what relief, if any, the plaintiff below might have been entitled to, if the-attaching creditors had been made defendants in the action, or to what extent courts of this state may restrain citizens ■ of the state from resorting to foreign jurisdictions in order to defeat the operation of our exemption laws. It is-enough to say, now, that no relief against such practices can be afforded, unless the persons who thus seek to evade-our statutes in that regard, are before the court.

Motion granted, judgment reversed, and cause remanded.  