'A non-resident of the state in which the at tachment is obtained cannot be held as gar nishee, unless he have in that state property of the defendant's in his hands, or be bound to pay the defendant money, or to deliver him goods, at some particular place in that state ; Nye v. Liscombe, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 263; Jones v. Winchester, 6 N. H. 497; Baxter v. Vincent, 6 Vt. 614; Miller v. Hooe, 2 Cranch, C. C. 622, Fed. Cas. No. 9,573 ; Lovejoy. v. Al bee, 33 -Me. 414, 54 Am. Dec. 630 ; Cronin v. Foster, 13 R. I. 196. A debt may be attach ed in any state where the debtor can be found if the law of the forum authorize at tachments ; Harvey v. Ry. Co., 50 Minn. 405, 52 N. W. 905, 17 L. R. A. 84.
The right to garnish debts due to non-resi dents payable in a foreign jurisdiction has given rise to much conflict in state courts. The question turns on the doctrine that a debt has a situa and the difference of opinion is as to where it is. Some courts hold that it is at the domicil of the creditor of the gar nishment ; Nat. Bank of Wilmington & Bran dywine v. Furtick, 2 Marv. (Del.) 35, 42 AU. 479, 44 L. R. A. 115, 69 Am. St. Rep. 99 ; Lou isville & N. R. Co. v. Nash, 118 Ala. 477, 23 South. 825, 41 L. R. A. 331, 72 Am. St. Rep. 181; High v. Padrosa, 119 Ga. 649, 46 S. E. 859 ; Glower v. Varnish Co., 120 Ga. 983, 48 S. E. 355 ; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Brinson, 109 Ga. 354, 34 S. E. 597, 77 Am. St. Rep. 382; Bullard v. Chaffee, 61 Neb. 83, 84 N. W. 604, 51 L. R. A. 715. In the deci sions to this effect it is sometimes admitted that "this fiction always yields to laws for attaching the property of a non-resident, be cause such laws necessarily assume that the property has a aitus distinct from the own er's domicil"; Wyeth Hardware & Mfg. Co.
v. Lang, 127 Mo. 242, 29 S. W. 1010, 27 L. R.
A. 651, 48 Am. St. Rep. 626. In other cases it is held that statutes and the custom of London may, and often do, for the purpose of garnishment give the debt a situs at the domicil of the debtor; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 17 Sup.' Ct. 797, 43 L. Ed. 1144 ; King v. Cross, 175 U. S. 396, 20 Sup. Ct. 131, 44 L. Ed. 211; Swedish American Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. Bleec ker, 72 Minn. 383, 75 N. W. 740, 42 L. R. A. 283, 71 Am. St. Rep. 492 ; Douglass v. Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. 209, 33 N. E. 938, 20 L. R. A. 118, 34 Am. St. Rep. 448 ; Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Corbetts, 165 Ill. 592, 46 N. E. 631, 36 L. R. A. 640, 56 Am. St. Rep. 275 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Allen, 58 W. Va. 388, 52 S. E. 465, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 608, 112 Am. St. Rep. 975. Though generally the situs of a debt is constructively with the creditor, it is within the competence of the sovereign of the resi dence of the debtor to pass laws subjecting the debt to seizure within its territory ; Reim ers v. Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. 573, 17 C. C. A. 228, 30 L. R. A. 364. See also Pomeroy v. Rand, Nally & Co., 157 Ill. 176, 41 N. E. 636 ; Bragg
v. Gaynor, 85 Wis. 468, 55 N. W. 919, 21 L. R. A. 161; Newland v. Reilly, 85 Mich. 151, 48 N. W. 544. In many of the cases cited, neither debtor nor creditor residing in the state where it was sought to attach, the question whether the situs was with the debt or or creditor was considered immaterial; Swedish-American Nat. Bank of Minneapo lis v. Bleecker, 72 Minn. 383, 75 N. W. 740, 42 L. R. A. 283, 71 Am. St. Rep. 492; lass v. Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. 209, 33 N. E. 938, 20 L. R. A. 118, 34 Am. St. Rep. 448 ; Lou isville & N. R. Co. v. Dooley, 78 Ala. 524; and in the cases supporting the doctrine that the debt follows the person of the creditor, the decision is usually rested not upon that doc trine (which is merely referred to as a gen eral principle), bnt upon some other proposi tion, although the rule has been distinctly adopted and applied ; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
v. Sharitt, 43 Kan. 375, 23 Pac. 430, 8 L. R.
A. 385, 389, 19 Am. St. Rep. 143. In Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 17 Sup. Ct. 797, 43 L. Ed. 1144, already cited, it is said: "The essential service of foreign attachment laws is to reach and arrest the payment of what is due and might be paid to a non-resident to the defeat of his creditors. To do this he must go to the domicil of his debtor, and can only do it under the laws and procedure in force there. This is a legal ne cessity and considerations of situs are some what artificial. If not artificial, whatever of substance there is must be with the debtor. He, and he only, has something in his hands. That something is a res and gives character to the action as known in the nature of a pro ceeding Vn rem," citing Mooney v. Mfg. Co., 72 Fed. 32, 18 C. C. A. 421.
It was held that a debt expressly payable at the domicil of the creditor was not sub ject to attachment at the domicil of the debt or ; Drake v. Ry. Co., 69 Mich. 168, 37 N. W. 70, 13 Am. St. Rep. 382 ; Bullard v. Chaffee, 61 Neb. 83, 84 N. W. 604, 51 L. R. A. 715 ; that a debt is subject to garnishment at the domicil of the debtor, if it be not payable elsewhere ; Walker v. Fairbanks, 55 Mo. App. 478; but this qualification was repudiated in Wyeth Hardware & Mfg. Co. v. Lang, 127 Is 242, 29 S. W. 1010, 27 L. R. A. 651, 48 Am. St. Rep. 626. Some cases hold, where both debtor and creditor are nonresidents, that to give jurisdiction to garnish the debt it must be expressly payable in the state of the garnishment, or at least contracted there and payable there by legal implication ; Rei mers v. Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. 573, 17 C. C. A. 228, 30 L. R. A. 364 ;' Green v. Bank, 25 Conn. 452 ; McKinney v. Mills, 80 Minn. 478, 83 N. W. 452, 81 Am. St. Rep. 278; Bush v. Nance, 61 Miss: 237 ; Sawyer v. Thompson, 24 N. H. 510; Lancaster v. Spotswood, 41 Misc. 19, 83 N. Y. Suprr. 572; Balk v. Harris, 124 N. C.