Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

parties outside of the district. (Liggett v. Miller, 1 Fed. Rep. 203.) No judgment can be rendered against a defendant who has not been served with process in the manner pointed out, unless the defendant waives the necessary process by entering his appearance. (Levy v. Fitzpatrick, 15 Peters, 167.) A party defendant may plead service of process on him out of the district by plea in abatement of the suit. (Van Antwerp v. Hulburd, 7 Blatchf. 426.) Where a defendant appears without taking exceptions, it is an admission of the regularity of the service (Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699); but if he appears aud answers the bill, he cannot on the hearing object that the bill contained a prayer for process, or that he was not served. (Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11.) And if he appears and pleads on the merits, it is a waiver of irregularity. (Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421; Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Peters, 293.)

Corporations.-A corporation can have no existence beyond the limits of the State in which it is created; hence, service of process upon its officers in another State will not confer jurisdiction upon a circuit court in that State over the corporation. (Northern Ind. R. Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 15 How. 233; Day v. Newmark Manuf. Co., 1 Blatchf. 628; Decker v. New York, B. & P. Co., 11 Blatchf. 76; Myers v. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 22.) As a corporation cannot be made a party to a civil suit by original process in any other district than the State wherein it was created (Meyers v. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 23), so a national bank cannot be sued out of the district in which it is located (Main v. Second Nat. Bank, 6 Biss. 26); but a trading corporation may be sued in any district in which it conducts its business (Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, 1 Fed. Rep. 93), and a foreign corporation may be sued in a district other than that of which it is a resident if it has a duly authorized resident agent qualified to acknowledge service of process (Runkle v. Lamar Ins. Co., 2 Fed. Rep. 9; Moch v. V. F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 696); or if it consents that process may be served on its agent in such State, jurisdiction attaches. (Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Knott v. Southern L. Ins. Co., 2 Woods, 479; Ehramn v. Teutonia Ins. Co., 1 Fed.

Rep. 479; Runkle v. Lamar Ins. Co., 2 Fed. Rep. 9; Fouda v. British Am. Ins. Co., 10 Chic. L. N. 309; Albright v. Empire Trans. Co., 18 Alb. L. J. 313; contra, Pomeroy v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 4 Blatchf. 120; Southern & A. T. R. Co. v. New Orleans M. & T. R. Co., 2 Cent. L. J. 88; Stillwell v. Empire F. Ins. Co., 4 Cent. L. J. 463.) A foreign corporation doing business within the State is liable to suit by service of process on an agent (Albright v. Empire Trans. Co., 18 Alb. L. J. 313; see Brownell v. T. & B. R. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 761; Moch v. V. F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 696), although there is no State law requiring it to appoint an agent to accept service of process. (Wilson Pack. Co. v. Hunter, 11 Chic. L. N. 207.) Corporations may be found for service of process wherever they are doing business. (Wilson Packing Co. v. Hunter, 8 Cent. L. J. 333; Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Moulin v. Ins. Co., 1 Dutch. 57; Moch v. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 696; Wheeling etc. Transp. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 1 Cin. Rep. 311; Hannibal etc. R. Co. v. Crane, 102 Ill. 249; Handy v. Ins. Co., 37 Ohio St. 366; 2 Ohio Law J. 289; McNichol v. U. S. Mercantile Association, 14 Cent. L. J. 51; Williams v. Empire Transp. Co., 14 O. G. 523.)

A personal privilege, and may be waived. This section is not a denial of jurisdiction, but the grant of a privilege to defendant not to be sued out of the State where he resides, unless served with process in the State where suit is brought (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489); and under its provisions the privilege granted to him may be waived (Flanders v. Etna Ins. Co., 3 Mason, 158; see Lovejoy v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 63), as by a voluntary appearance (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489; Hale v. Contin. Ins. Co., 12 Fed. Rep. 359); and his appearance without process is a waiver of the privilege to object to the non-service of process. Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699; Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11; Kelsey v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 14 Blatchf. 89; McCloskey v. Cobb, 2 Bond, 16; Flanders v. Ætna Ins. Co., 3 Mason, 158; Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 499; Clarke v. Navigation Co., 1 Story, 531.) So appearing and moving to dismiss the bill for want of equity

(Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327), or an appearance unaccompanied by a plea claiming the privilege, is a waiver of it. (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489.) For an appearance to confer jurisdiction, the party must be a party to the record. (Kentucky S. M. Co. v. Day, 2 Sawy. 468). If a party is a non-resident he may appear in the suit and plead his personal privilege (Teese v. Phelps, 1 McAll. 17), and such an appearance is not a waiver (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489); but it is not a waiver to appear and plead to the jurisdiction by an attorney. (Commercial Bank v. Slocomb, 14 Peters, 60; Thayer vs. Wales, 5 Fish. 448; Decker v. New York B. & P. Co., 11 Blatchf. 76. Where a bill was filed in the southern district of Mississippi against four defendants, two of whom appeared for the purpose of moving to dismiss the bill, and the other two declined to appear and process was not served on them, the court had no alternative but to dismiss the bill, they being necessary parties. (Herndon v. Ridgway, 17 How. 424.)

Process by attachment.. -An attachment against the property of a non-resident cannot be sued out, unless the defendant is first personally served with process. (Ex parte Des Moines R. R. Co., 2 Morr. Trans. 303.) The circuit court has no jurisdiction in attachment suits against a non-resident without the district. (Hollingsworth v. Adams, 2 Dall. 398; Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. 208; Day v. Newark Manuf. Co., 1 Blatchf. 628; Sadler v. Hudson, 2 Curt. 6; Mauldin v. Carll, 3 Hughes, 247; Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35; Richmond v. Dreyfous, 1 Sum. 131.) Process of foreign attachment cannot be properly issued by the circuit court in cases where defendant is domiciled abroad or not found within the district, so that it can be served upon him (Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Anderson v. Shaffer, 10 Fed. Rep. 266), and this applies to corporations. (Meyers v. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 22.) Process of attachment on the effects of a person not an inhabitant cannot be served (Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 424); but if served not only on the property but on the defendant, jurisdiction attaches. (North v. McDonald, 1 Biss. 57.) An assignee appointed by a bankrupt court of another district is within the rule,

(Shain

although there is property within the district. wald v. Lewis, 5 Fed. Rep. 510; S. C., 6 Sawy. 585.) Where a citizen of the United States is a resident in a foreign country, the circuit court has no jurisdiction over a suit brought by an alien, although he has property within the district which may be attached. (Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35.)

Civil suit. "Civil suit" means a suit within the category of "all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity," and a case of admiralty jurisdiction is not within the meaning of this prohibition. (Atkins v. Disintegrating Co., 18 Wall. 272; Casey v. Leary, 2 Ben. 530; Manchester v. Hotchkiss: 13 Int. Rev. Rec. 125; but see Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456; Wilson v. Pierce, 15 Law Rep. 137; New England Ins. Co. v. Navigation Co., 13 Int. Rev. Rec, 94.) This provision does not apply to a person who has never been an inhabitant of the United States. (Cushing v. Laird, 4 Ben. 70.) A prize proceeding is a civil suit, and if against the person can be instituted only in the district where he is inhabitant or is found. (Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456.) Attachment will lie against in debt or contract or tort. (McGrath v. Candalero, Bee, 64; Bouysson v. Miller, Bee, 186.) It may be issued against a non-resident in an action on contract, even if the non-resident be a corporation. (Clarke v. Navigation Co., 1 Story, 531.)

§ 252 (747). Parties may plead their own causes.--In all the courts of the United States the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally, or by the assistance of such counsel or attorneys-at-law as, by the rules of the said courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein. (Rev. Stats. sec. 747.)

When an attorney is selected to conduct and manage the case, the attorney stands in the place of the party and has exclusive control and management, and his client cannot appoint an agent to represent him in the suit. (Nightingale v. Oreg. Cent. R. R. Co., 2 Sawy. 338.)

§ 253 (748.) Officers forbidden to prac▪ tice as attorneys.-No clerk, assistant, or deputy clerk, of any territorial district, or circuit court, or of the court of claims, or the Supreme Court of the United States, or marshal or deputy marshal of the United States within the district for which he is appointed, shall act as a solicitor, proctor, attorney, or counsel in any cause depending in either of said courts, or in any district for which he is acting as such officer. (Rev. Stats. sec. 748.)

$ 254 (749). Penalty.-Whosoever violates the preceding section shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys by the court, upon con plaint, upon which the respondent shall have due notice, and be heard in his defense; and in the case of a marshal or deputy marshal so acting, he shall be recommended by the court for dismissal from office. (Rev. Stats. sec. 749.)

$ 255 (750.) Final record.-In equity and admiralty causes, only the process, pleadings, and decree, and such orders and memorandums as may be necessary to show the jurisdiction of the court and regularity of the proceedings, shall be entered upon the final record. (See sec. 698. Rev. Stats. sec. 749.)

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »