198 U.S. 215 (1905)
Harris, a resident of North Carolina, owed Balk, also a resident of North Carolina, the sum of one hundred eighty dollars.1 Balk in turn owed Epstein a larger sum of approximately three hundred forty-four dollars.2 While Harris was temporarily present in the State of Maryland, Epstein caused a writ of attachment to be issued against Balk in a Maryland court and served the writ upon Harris as garnishee.3
The Maryland court entered a judgment condemning the debt owed by Harris to Balk and directing that Harris pay the sum of one hundred eighty dollars to Epstein.4 Harris complied with the judgment and made the payment to Epstein.5 Balk then commenced an action against Harris in the courts of North Carolina to recover the same debt.6
Harris interposed the Maryland judgment and his payment thereunder as a defense to Balk's suit.7 Balk had notice of the attachment and judgment within a few days after it was entered and after Harris returned to North Carolina.8 The Supreme Court of North Carolina refused to give any effect to the Maryland judgment in the action, and the case came before the Supreme Court of the United States for review of that refusal.9
Whether the Maryland court obtained jurisdiction to enter a judgment of condemnation against the garnishee Harris by personal service of process while he was temporarily present in Maryland?10
Attachment is the creature of the local law. If there be a law of the State providing for the attachment of the debt, then if the garnishee be found in that State, and process be personally served upon him therein, the court thereby acquires jurisdiction over him, and can garnish the debt due from him to the debtor of the plaintiff and condemn it, provided the garnishee could himself be sued by his creditor in that State.11 We do not see how the question of jurisdiction vel non can properly be made to depend upon the so-called original situs of the debt, or upon the character of the stay of the garnishee, whether temporary or permanent, in the State where the attachment is issued. Power over the person of the garnishee confers jurisdiction on the courts of the State where the writ issues.12
Yes. The Supreme Court of North Carolina refused to give any effect to the Maryland judgment in the action.13 The case came before the Supreme Court of the United States for review of that refusal on the federal question of full faith and credit.14 The Maryland court obtained jurisdiction because Harris was served while present in the state and the law of Maryland permitted the attachment, and Balk could have sued Harris there.15
The obligation to pay the debt clings to and accompanies the debtor wherever he goes, rendering the temporary character of the stay immaterial.16
The Maryland court obtained jurisdiction to enter the judgment of condemnation against Harris.17
Whether the North Carolina court was required to give full faith and credit to the Maryland judgment under the Federal Constitution?18
If the Maryland court had jurisdiction to award it, the judgment is valid and entitled to the same full faith and credit in North Carolina that it has in Maryland as a valid domestic judgment.19 The state court of North Carolina has refused to give any effect in this action to the Maryland judgment. The Federal question is whether it did not thereby refuse the full faith and credit to such judgment which is required by the Federal Constitution.
Yes. Because the Maryland court had jurisdiction over the garnishee Harris through personal service while he was in the state, the judgment it rendered is valid.20 The North Carolina court was therefore obligated under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize and give effect to that judgment in the subsequent action brought by Balk.21 The refusal to do so violated the constitutional requirement that valid judgments from sister states be accorded full faith and credit.22
It is the object of courts to prevent the payment of any debt twice over, and the garnishee who pays under a valid judgment should not be compelled to pay a second time.23
The Supreme Court of North Carolina was required to give full faith and credit to the Maryland judgment.24