JUDGMENTS AND DECREES OF FOREIGN Comm relating to immovable property with in their jurisdiction are held binding every where. And the rule is the same with re gard to movables actually within their juris diction; Noble v. Oil Co., 79 Pa. 354, 21 Am. Rep. 66; The Rio Grande, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 458, 23 L. Ed. 158; 2 C. & P. 155. See Pen foyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565; L. R. 4 H. L. 414; Barrow v. West, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 270; Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 434, 2 L. Ed. 670. Thus admiralty proceedings in rem are held conclusive every where if the court had a rightful jurisdic tion founded on actual possession of the subject-matter; Rose v. Himely, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 241, 2 L. Ed. 608; Hudson v. Guestier, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 293, 2 L. Ed. 625; Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cra. (U. S.) 434, 2 L. Ed. 670; The Mary, 9 Cra. (U. S.) 126, 3 L. Ed. 678; Grant v. M'Lachlin, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 34 ; Bradstreet v. Ins. Co., 3 Sumn. 600, Fed. Cas. No. 1,793; Magoun v. ins. co., 1 Sto. 157, Fed. Cas. No. 8,961; Gray v. Swan, 1 H. & J. (Md.) 142; Calhoun v. Ins. Co., 1 Binn. (Pa.) 299; Baxter v. Ins. Co., 6 Mass. 277, 4 Am. Dec. 125; L. R. 5 Q. B. 599; Dunham v. Ins. Co., 1 Low. 253, Fed. Cas. No. 4,152; State v. R. Co., 10 Nev. 47.
But such decree may be avoided for mat ter apparently erroneous on the face of the record ; 7 Term 523; or if there be an am biguity as to grounds of condemnation; 7 Bingh. 495; 1 Green]. Ev. § 541, n.; An drews v. Herriot, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 520, n. 3;
2 Kent 120.
Jurisdiction to garnish a debt not pay able at a particular place cannot, according to some cases, be had without personal serv ice on the creditor; see cases collected in Minor, Conti. of Laws § 125. These cases are overruled in Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 19 Sup. Ct. 797, 43 L. Ed. 1144, which holds that service on the garnishee alone, obtained in the state of his domicil, gives jurisdiction. This decision was based on reasoning and dicta which would allow jurisdiction irrespective of domicil wherever such service is obtained, and this view had been previously adopted by a few cases cited in Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710, 19 Sup. Ct. 797, 43 L. Ed. 1144. See, contra, Pennsyl vania R: Co. v. Rogers, 52 W. Va. 450, 44 S. E. 300, 62 L. R. A. 178.
Proceedings under the garnishee process are held proceedings in rem; and a decree may be pleaded in bar of an action against the trustee or garnishee; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 542; 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 520, n. But the court must have rightful jurisdiction over the res to make the judgment binding; and then it will be effectual only as to the res, unless the court had actual jurisdiction over the person also; McVicker v. Beedy, 31 Me. 314, 50 Am. Dec. 666; Mattingly's Heirs v. Corbit, 7 B. Monr. (Ky.) 376; State v. R. Co., 10 Nev. 47; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565.