Provident Savings Life Assur Soc of New York v. Ford

Citation5 S.Ct. 1104,114 U.S. 635,29 L.Ed. 261
PartiesPROVIDENT SAVINGS LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF NEW YORK v. FORD
Decision Date04 May 1885
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

S. G. Clarke and E. B. Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Esek Cowen, for defendant in error.

BRADLEY, J.

This was an action brought in the supreme court of New York by Daniel W. Ford, the defendant in error, against the Provident Savings Life Assurance Company, the plaintiff in error, on a judgment recovered by one Charles Cochran against said company in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Ohio, and assigned by Cochran to the plaintiff, Ford. The complaint contained, among others, the following averments, to-wit: 'That heretofore, and on or about the twelfth day of December, 1876, one Charles Cochran, then a resident of the state of Ohio, in due form of law, commenced an action in the United States circuit court for the Northern district of Ohio against the defendant in this action, praying for a judgment against said defendant for twenty thousand dollars' damages; that the defendant in said action and herein duly appeared in said action, and answered the petition or complaint of said Cochran, and after trial had of the issues thus joined, at which the defendant therein and herein duly appeared, judgment was duly directed, and subsequently, and on or about the tenth day of October, 1878, was duly entered and docketed in the office of the clerk of said United States circuit court for the said Northern district of Ohio, in favor of the said complainant, Cochran, and against the said The Provident Savings Life Assurance Society of New York, the defendant therein and herein, for the sum of three thousand three hundred five and 45-100 dollars damages and costs. * * * This plaintiff further alleges that on or about the thirtieth day of November, 1878, the said Charles Cochran, the complainant in said action, and the then lawful holder and owner of said judgment, duly assigned and transferred to this plaintiff the said judgment, together with all his rights and claims thereunder and the interest due thereon.'

The defendant, in answer to the complaint, admitted that Cochran had taken some proceedings in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Ohio, praying for judgment against the defendant; but averred that there was never any personal service of process, summons, or petition upon the defendant; and denied any knowledge of the recovery of any judgment as alleged in the complaint, or that Cochran had assigned the alleged judgment to Ford.

The cause came on for trial in February, 1879, but before the trial commenced the defendant presented a petition for the removal of the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the Norther district of New York, accompanied by a bond, which was approved by the court. The petition was as follows, to-wit:

'SUPREME COURT, RENSSELAER COUNTY.

'Daniel W. Ford against The Provident Savings Life Assurance Society of New York.

'To said Supreme Court: Your petitioner respectfully shows to this honorable court that it is the defendant in the above action, and a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the state of New York, located and having its place of business in the city of New York, and was such corporation during all the times hereinafter mentioned, and was never organized or incorporated under any law of the state of Ohio; that the above action is brought to recover the amount of a judgment alleged to have been obtained against your petitioner in the state of Ohio, by one Charles Cochran, on the tenth day of October, 1878, in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Ohio, for the sum of three thousand three hundred and five dollars and forty-five cents; that said Cochran then resided and still resides in the state of Ohio that this action is brought upon an alleged assignment of said judgment to the plaintiff above named by said Cochran, and is now pending and undetermined; that the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and involves questions arising under the laws of the United States, to-wit, under section 739 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Said section forbids 'any suit to be brought by any original process before either of the United States courts against an inhabitant of the United States in any other district than that of which he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ.' And your petitioner avers that the said suit in Ohio was by original process, but that the said process was never served personally upon the defendant in said action in Ohio, or upon any of its officers, nor was the defendant ever an inhabitant of Ohio or found therein; and, as your petitioner verily believes, said circuit court never acquired jurisdiction, and said judgment is invalid and void, and that such want of personal service as aforesaid is alleged in the answer in the present action, and that the trial of this action will necessarily involve the construction and effect of the said law of the United States, to-wit, the said 739th section of the said United States Revised Statutes. Secondly. And your petitioners further say, as they are informed and verily believe, that the plaintiff in this action is not the real party in interest therein, but that said Cochran is the real party in interest, and that said alleged assignment is merely colorable; that it was made without any consideration and merely for the purpose of prosecuting and collecting said judgment for the benefit of said Cochran, and to avoid the necessity of said Cochran's giving security for costs as a non-resident of this state, and to embarrass and, if possible, prevent the transfer of this action to the United States courts, and that the controversy in this action is in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
82 cases
  • Thompson v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 18 Noviembre 1933
    ...does not, in a suit upon the judgment, raise a question under the laws of the United States. In Provident Savings Society v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635, 641, 5 S. Ct. 1104, 1107, 29 L. Ed. 261, the court "What is a judgment, but a security of record showing a debt due from one person to another? I......
  • Shellenbarger v. Fewel.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 19 Marzo 1912
    ...414, 416, 5 S. Ct. 208, 28 L. Ed. 794; Brown v. Houston, 114 U.S. 622, 5 S. Ct. 1091, 29 L. Ed. 257; Provident Say., etc., Society v. Ford, 114 U.S. 635, 642, 5 S. Ct. 1104, 29 L. Ed. 261; Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U.S. 1, 5 S. Ct. 1113, 29 L. Ed. 319; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 ......
  • Schwyhart v. Barrett
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 28 Junio 1910
    ...on which it is based and amounts to nothing and will be disregarded. Little York Gold Co. v. Keys, 96 U.S. 190, 24 Law. Ed. 656; Bank v. Ford, 114 U.S. 635, 29 Law Ed. Hambledom v. Dunham, 22 F. 465; Railroad v. Dixon, 179 U.S. 131; Carson v. Dunham, 121 U.S. 421. (8) The fact that defendan......
  • Lang v. Colonial Pipeline Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 5 Abril 1967
    ...exist. Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co., 284 U.S. 183, 52 S.Ct. 84, 76 L.Ed. 233 (1930); Provident Savings Life Assurance Society v. Ford, 114 U.S. 635, 5 S.Ct. 1104, 29 L.Ed. 261 (1885). The Congress has also expressly narrowed our diversity power by providing that a corporation shall be ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT