United States v. Eddy
| Citation | 28 F. 226 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. EDDY and others. |
| Decision Date | 20 July 1885 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
May 15 1885, the district attorney left the petition in this action at the clerk's office in Cleveland, in the Eastern division, with the deputy-clerk there, who, at the district attorney's request, marked the petition 'Filed,' issued summons, and delivered same to the marshal; and thereafter, on the same day, forwarded the petition by mail to the deputy-clerk in charge of the office at Toledo, where it was first received the following morning. In each office papers are marked 'Filed' by a rubber stamp, which reads the same for both offices. The deputy at Cleveland upon forwarding the petition to the deputy at Toledo, advised the latter that summons had been issued. All the defendants except one, who is a non-resident of the state, and was not served, reside at Toledo, and were there served.
The defendants who were served appear specially, and move to set aside the summons because it was prematurely issued before any petition was on file in the clerk's office at Toledo. The motion was submitted to Judges WELKER and HAMMOND, at Toledo, on June 15, 1885, and, upon the suggestion of the latter that it was desirable to have a ruling upon the question which would be authoritative throughout the circuit, the hearing was adjourned to June 27th before Justice MATTHEWS and Judge WELKER, at Cleveland.
In Ohio a civil action can only be commenced by filing in the office of the clerk of the proper court a petition, and causing a summons to be issued thereon. Rev. St. Sec. 5035; Robinson v. Orr, 16 Ohio St. 284; Bowen v Bowen, 36 Ohio St. 312.
The summons having been issued before a petition was filed in the proper office is void. Seibert v. Switzer, 35 Ohio St. 661; Ellis v. Fletcher, 40 Mich. 321.
The summons, being void, must be set aside on motion for that purpose. Smith v. Hoover, 39 Ohio St. 249; Handy v. Insurance Co., 37 Ohio St. 366; Compton v Wilder, 40 Ohio St. 130; Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476. See, also, Peaslee v. Haberstro, 15 Blatchf. 472; Dwight v. Merritt, 4 Fed.Rep. 614; Brown v. Pond, 5 Fed.Rep. 31; Manville v. Battle Mountain Sm. Co., 17 F. 126; Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co., 19 F. 252; Steiger v. Bonn, 4 Fed.Rep. 17; Lyell v. Goodwin, 4 McLean, 29; U.S. v. Bridgman, 9 Biss. 221; Atchison v. Morris, 11 F. 582; Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed.Rep. 17; Day v. Newark India Rubber Manuf'g Co., 1 Blatchf. 628; Perkins v. City of Watertown, 5 Biss. 320; Grover v. American Exp. Co., 11 F. 386.
If it be held that the filing of the petition in Cleveland, and there issuing summons, was the bringing of the action, then the action was brought in the Eastern division, and the summons must be set aside and the petition dismissed. Page v. Chillicothe, 6 Fed.Rep. 599.
Brown & Geddes, for the motion.
Emerson H. Eggleston, U.S. Atty., contra.
MATTHEWS, Justice, made the following order, in which WELKER J., concurred:
The motion heretofore made in this case by defendants' counsel to set aside the service of the summons dated May 15, 1885, is granted on the ground that the said summons was improvidently and irregularly issued, the petition not, at the time the said summons was issued, having been filed in the office of the clerk of said court at Toledo, where alone said suit could by law be brought.
(June 30, 1886.)
An alias summons having been issued June 1, 1885, and the defendants having been duly served, the sureties answered that the account of the principal was settled, and his term of office expired, on the sixteenth day of May, 1882, and that the action was, as against them, barred by limitation. June 30, 1886, the cause was submitted to WELKER, J., who held that the action was not begun until the issue of the alias summons; and not having been instituted within three years after the close of the principal's account, the sureties were discharged, under section 3838 of the Revised Statutes.
Judgment was rendered against the principal by default.
NOTE.
Where an action has been commenced on a claim, no matter how defective it may be, it stops the running of the statute of limitations. Smith v. McNeal, 3 Sup.Ct.Rep. 319.
The mere filing of a complaint before a magistrate, charging the commission of felony, upon which no warrant is issued nor arrest made, is not such a commencement of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Wells v. Hough
......208; Roth v. Wade, 2 Hill 385;. Brackett v. Simons, 1 N.Y.S. Ct. 86; U.S. v. Eddy, 28 F. 226; Robinson v. Orr, 16 Ohio St. 284; Bowen v. Bowen, 36 Ohio St. 312; Seibert v. ... plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and of the State. of Missouri, and is a duly qualified and registered voter in. the city ......
-
United States v. American Lumber Co.
...356: Mason v. Cheney, 47 N.H. 24; Cheetham v. Lewis, 3 Johns. 42; Fowler v. Sharp, 15 Johns. 323; Noel v. Noel (Va.) 25 S.E. 242; U.S. v. Eddy, 28 F. 226; Dwight v. Merritt, 4 Fed. The same rule obtains in equity. The suit is deemed commenced from the time of the issuance of the subpoena an......
-
Lavietes v. Ferro Stamping & Mfg. Co.
...brought in Michigan it must be brought in the Southern Division of the Eastern District. Page v. Chillicothe (C.C.) 6 F. 599; United States v. Eddy (C.C.) 28 F. 226. Counsel for plaintiff, in a carefully prepared brief, contend that the special act creating the two divisions in the Eastern ......
-
Sartor v. United Gas Public Service Co.
...has now been found to support this view, to wit, International Bank & Trust Co. v. Scott (C. C. A. Fifth Circuit) 159 F. 58, and U. S. v. Eddy (C. C.) 28 F. 226. A closer examination of the law would also indicate that the section of the Code relied upon by defendant has no application to a......