Joseph McKenna

“ It is difficult to state the argument made to support the contention of plaintiffs in error. It rests ultimately on a claim of immunity from suit in Massachusetts and a claim of immunity from attachment of debts due plaintiffs in error from citizens of Massachusetts. Argumentatively, it is said that the action originally brought did not justify trustee process, and that the amendments subsequently made to the declaration were not authorized, though consented to by counsel who appeared in and conducted the case. We do not assent to either proposition. ”

“ The objection that the writ of error should have been directed to the supreme court, and not to the superior court, is answered by McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311, 45 L. ed. 542, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389.
The constitutional questions raised by plaintiffs in error are (1) that they have been deprived of their property without due process of law; (2) that if the judgment be allowed to stand it will impair the obligation of contracts, contrary to the Constitution of the United States ”

“ To what actions the remedy of attachment may be given is for the legislature of a state to determine and its courts to decide, and the power of counsel certainly extends to consenting to amendments authorized by the laws of the state. ”