Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

(Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 109.) The mere knowledge of the pendency of the suit and employment of counsel are not sufficient. (McPike v. Wells, 54 Miss. 156.) A decree of the circuit court will not affect the interest of a person who is not made a party to the suit. (McPike v. Wells, 54 Miss. 136.) If the court cannot bring in the necessary parties, it may retain the cause till complainant has an opportunity to sue in some other court (Mallon v. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193); but if a defendant has a severable interest, the bill should be dismissed as to him. (Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wend. 570.) If some of the heirs cannot be brought before the court, the undivided interest of those who do appear may be sold, and the lien of the grantee remain on the part unsold. (Harding v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 103.)

§25 (738). Absentdefendants, how served. That when in any suit, commenced in any circuit court of the United States, to enforce any legal or equitable lien upon, or claim to, or to remove any encumbrance or lien or cloud upon the title to real or personal property within the district where such suit is brought, one or more of the defendants therein shall not be an inhabitant of, or found within, the said district, or shall not voluntarily appear thereto, it shall be lawful for the court to make an order directing such absent defendant or defendants to appear, plead, answer, or demur, by a day certain to be designated, which order shall be served on such absent defendant or defendants, if practicable, wherever found, and also upon the person or persons in possession or charge of said property, if any there be; or where such personal service upon such absent defendant or defendants is not practicable, such order shall be published in such manner as the court may direct, not less than once a week for six consecutive weeks; and in case

such absent defendant shall not appear, plead, answer, or demur within the time so limited, or within some further time, to be allowed by the court in his discretion, and upon proof of the service or publication of said order, and of the performance of the directions contained in the same, it shall be lawful for the court to entertain jurisdiction, and proceed to the hearing and adjudication of such suit in the same manner as if such absent defendant had been served with process within the said district; but such adjudication shall, as regards such absent defendant or defendants, without appearance, affect only the property which shall have been the subject of the suit and under the jurisdiction of the court therein, within such district. And when a part of the said real or personal property against which such proceeding shall be taken shall be within another district, but within the same State, said suit may be brought in either district in said State; provided, however, "that any defendant or defendants not actually personally notified as above provided may, at any time within one year after final judgment in any suit mentioned in this section enter his appearance in said suit in said circuit court, and thereupon the said court shall make an order setting aside the judgment therein, and permitting said defendant or defendants to plead therein on payment by him or them of such costs as the court shall deem just; and thereupon said suit shall be proceeded with to final judgment according to law. (18 U. S. Stats. 472; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 176; Rev. Stats. sec. 738.)

Service for publication.-When service of process is by publication, a strict compliance with the statutory

provisions is required. (Cheeley v. Clayton, 110 U. S. 701.)

Application of statute.-This section does not apply to a suit by an assignee in bankruptcy to recover assets from a stranger, but to suits in equity to enforce some preexisting lien. (Spainwell v. Lewis, 5 Fed. Rep. 510; S. C. 6 Sawy. 585.) The provisions of this sect.on apply to suits instituted prior to its passage. (McBurney v. Carson, 99 U. S. 567.) It recognizes the 'superiority of personal service over constructive service (Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498); and whether personal service is practicable may be ascertained from the athidavit of the party, or his attorney or agent. (Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498.) If it appears that the absent defendant resides in another district, service may be made by the marshal of that district, and a special order may direct service by some other officer. (Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498.) F'ersonal service must be made in all cases where the residence of defendant is known. (Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 49S.) An order directing an absent defendant to appear cannot be made until the return day of the writ. (Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498.) If the owner of stock lives in another district, the stock follows the person (Kilgour v. New Orleans Gas L. Co., 2 Woods, 144); and stock not designated or ascertained is a mere chose in action. (Kilgour v. New Orleans Gas L. Co., 2 Woods, 144.) If a Lill is filed to reach a debtor's assets, the debtor may be made a party by order of publication (Brigham v. Luddington, 12 Blatchf. 237); and the order will not be granted if complainant and the party to be brought in are both citizens of the same State. (Brigham v. Luddington, 12 Batchf. 237.) Adequate remedy at law means any form of remedy at law. (La Mothe v. Fink, 6 Sawy. 493.) A federal court may entertain jurisdiction of a creditor s bill, although parties in the suit may be compelled to testify under an act of Congress (Frazer v. Colorado D. & S. Co., 2 McCrary, 11); and although the code of the State gives special proceedings to subject the property to execution. (Frazer v. Colorado D. & S. Co., 2 McCrary, 11.) The same property cannot be subject to two jurisdictions at the same time, and the first levy withdraws the property

from the reach of another court. (Domestic & For. Miss. Soc. v. Hinman, 2 McCrary, 543.) If a defendant voluntarily files an answer, the court acquires jurisdiction over him. (Turner v. Indianapolis etc. R. Co., 8 Biss. 380.) This section corresponds to section 8 of Act of March 3, 1875, which is expressly saved by section 5, Act of March 3, 1887. Under the last mentioned act, a suit by a citizen of Ohio against citizens of Vermont, New York and Maine, to en orce a claim to property in Vermont, is properly brought in the district of Vermont. (Carpenter v. Talbot, Cir. Ct. Vt., 33 Fed. Rep. 537.) This section applies to suits in equity under United States Revised Statutes, section 4915, to procure the issue of letters patent for an invention, after rejection of the application therefor. (Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U. S. 128.)

$ 26. Suits against inhabitants of United States to be brought where they reside or are found.-Except in the cases provided in the next three sections, no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action before a circuit or district court; and except in the said cases and the cases provided by the preceding section, no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process, in any other district than that of which he is an inhabitant, or in which he is found at the time of serving the writ. (Rev. Stats. sec. 739; 18 U. S. Stats. 470; 1 Sup. Rev. Stats. 173.)

Application of statute.-This section does not apply to territorial courts. (Salisbury v. Sands, 2 Dill. 270.) Its provisions apply to process in equity as well as at law (Winter v. Ludlow, 3 Phila. 464); as on a bill filed to set aside a foreclosure sale. (Pacific R. R. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 772; 1 McCrary, 647.) It applies exclusively to original process. (Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35.) The statute of Indiana of May 29, 1879, relating to proFED. PROC.-11,

cedure in actions against foreign corporations, their officers or agents, does not apply to causes arising outside the S ate. (Grover v. American Express Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 386) This section applies to suits for relief against interfering patents. (Liggett etc. Co. v. Miller, 1 Fed. Rep. 203; 1 McCrary, 31.) It inhibits the suing of any person in any other district than the district in which he resides. (Lovejoy v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 64.) The provisions of this section are applicable to patent suits. (Chaffe v. Hayward, 20 How. 208; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatchf. 480; Day v. Newark Manf. Co., 1 Blatchf. 628.) A bill to obtain relief against a judgment is deemed an auxiliary suit, and the subpoena may be serve l in another district (Logan v. Patrick, 5 Cranch, 288; Dunlap v. Stetson, 4 Mason, 349); and if plaintiff is non-resident, it may be served on plaintiff's attorney. (Dunn v. Clarke, 8 l'eters, 1; Seegee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11; Hitner v. Suckley, 2 Wash. C. C. 465; Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 171; Eckert v. Bauert, 4 Wash. C. C. 370; Ward v. Seabry, 4 Wash. 426. See additional notes, p. 898.)

Territorial limit of jurisdiction.-A court created within and for a particular Territory is bounded in the exercise of its power by the limits of such Territory. (Piquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35; Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456.) Whatever may be the extent of the jurisdiction over the subject-matter in a suit in respect to jurisdiction over persons and property, it can only be exercised wi hin the limits of the judicial district. (Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35.) The circuit court has jurisdiction only over the inhabitants of the district, or persons "found" therein, and served with process. (Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 422; Anderson v. Shaffer, 10 Fed. Rep. 266.) Where a citizen of New Hampshire and a citizen of Georgia sued a citizen of Massachusetts in New York, where he was arrested, the court had no jurisdiction. (Moffat v. Soley, 2 Paine, 103.) Where there are two districts in a State, a citizen of such State is liable to suit in either district, if served with process. (McMicken v. Webb, 11 Peters, 25; Vore v. owler, 2 Bond, 294; Locomotive Co. v. Erie R. Co. 10 Elatchf. 234.)

« AnteriorContinuar »