Pennington v. Fourth National Bank,
243 U.S. 269 (1917)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Pennington v. Fourth National Bank, 243 U.S. 269 (1917)

Pennington v. Fourth National Bank

No. 147

Argued January 26, 1917

Decided March 6, 1917

243 U.S. 269


The power of the states to seize tangible and intangible property and apply it to satisfy the obligations of absent owners is not obstructed by the federal Constitution.

The power is the same whether the obligation sought to be enforced be admitted or contested, liquidated or unliquidated, inchoate or mature.

The only essentials to its exercise are the presence of the res, its seizure at the commencement of proceedings, and the opportunity of the owner to be heard.

Where these essentials exist, a decree for alimony will be valid under the same circumstances and to the same extent as a judgment on a debt, i.e., valid as a charge upon the property seized. So held where the property was the divorced husband's bank account.

Property not subject to attachment at law may be reached in equity; an injunction entered at the commencement of proceedings for divorce and alimony may operate as a seizure, in the nature of a garnishment, of defendant's account in bank.

92 Ohio St. 517 affirmed.

Page 243 U. S. 270

The case is stated in the opinion.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.