Boykin v. Hope Production Co., 2066.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 2066.,2066. |
| Citation | 58 F.2d 1041 |
| Parties | BOYKIN v. HOPE PRODUCTION CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
G. P. Bullis, of Vidalia, La., and J. B. Dawkins, of Monroe, La., for plaintiff.
Shotwell & Brown, of Monroe, La., for defendant.
This is an action in damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of Richland parish, within this district, and that the defendant is a Delaware corporation, which has appointed an agent for service of legal process residing in the city of New Orleans, within the Eastern district of this state. Citation was addressed to and served by the marshal of said Eastern district upon said agent.
Defendant has filed what is styled an exception to the venue and plea to the jurisdiction. In an amended "plea to the jurisdiction" it is alleged as follows: "* * * As will appear from the citation issued in said cause, together with the purported return thereon, there has been no service made upon the said Henry Dart within the Western District of Louisiana, wherein the present cause is now pending, the only attempted service in said cause having been made upon said Henry Dart at New Orleans, Louisiana, within the Eastern District of Louisiana, and that such attempted or purported service is illegal, void and of no force and effect, and that this Honorable Court on account of the lack of process has obtained no jurisdiction over the defendant herein, and that therefore. * * *"
Plaintiff contends that the plea should have been by motion to quash the citation, as the court has jurisdiction under section 51 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA ? 112), by virtue of the fact that the petition alleges he is a resident of this district and that the matter complained of cannot be set up in the manner attempted. However, whether it be termed an exception to the citation or a plea to the jurisdiction, or venue, the facts upon which it is based are alleged, and defendant prays that it "be sustained and plaintiff's suit dismissed and erased from the docket of this court. * * *" Whatever may be said about the matter, the issue raised by the plea is as to the power of this court to exercise its jurisdiction in personam over the defendant. The action is transitory in its nature, and, unless the defendant is brought into court by proper process served according to law, there can be no exercise of judicial power over it, which is, in the final analysis, a matter of jurisdiction ration? person?. It is true that the federal statute permits the bringing of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Junk v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...effect upon these fundamental provisions," citing Petty v. Dock Contractor Co. supra and other cases. Likewise in Boykin v. Hope Production Co., D.C.La., 58 F.2d 1041, it was held that process issuing in one district and served upon a designated agent in another district of the same state w......
-
Williams v. James
...O'Connell v. Kearns, D.C.R.I. 1928, 26 F.2d 235; Keller v. American Sales Book Co., D.C.N.Y. 1936, 16 F.Supp. 189; Boykin v. Hope Production Co., D.C.La. 1931, 58 F.2d 1041. This should be, because of the nearly unanimous desire of our federal judiciary, supported by this enactment of the n......
-
Read v. Ulmer
...Lessee v. Craig's Heirs, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 147, 10 L.Ed. 393; Hicklin v. Edwards, 8th Cir., 1955, 226 F.2d 410; Boykin v. Hope Production Co., W. D. La.1931, 58 F.2d 1041. There seems to be no doubt but that it was improper for the district court to exact from Vertol the identity of its ins......
-
McCarley v. Foster-Milburn Co.
...for sending the process of one district into another to be served by the marshal of the latter district." Boykin v. Hope Production Co., D.C.W.D.La., 58 F.2d 1041, 1042. Said section 1404(a) must be read with said section 1391(a), which limits the venue in cases based on diversity of citize......