v. Weitzel, 27 Ariz. 117, 230 P. 1106 (1924), for the proposition that a debt owed by a non-Arizona corporation was located here because the corporation was subject to Arizona service. But Weitzel was decided half a century before Shaffer, and expressly relied on the Harris fiction. Id. at 121, 230 P. 1106, 230 P. at 1107. Moreover, Weitzel involved a post-judgment garnishment. In such circumstances, the defendant’s liability has already been established. The relevant jurisdictional analysis in such eases properly focuses on whether the garnishee is subject to the specific or general jurisdiction of the forum state, not whether the intangible res is located there under the Harris fiction. See State ex rel. Dep’t of Rev. v. Control Data Corp., 300 Or. 471, 713 P.2d 30, 32 (1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 210 n. 36, 97
holding that garnishment is a distinct civil action holding that a garnishment proceeding is an action against the consumer holding without resort to the harris fiction that a postjudgment garnishment could reach wages owed to the judgment debtor in the hands of control data a third party that unquestionably is present in oregon holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant holding that garnishment of wages is a deprivation