Cohen v. Plutschak
Decision Date | 22 March 1930 |
Citation | 40 F.2d 727 |
Parties | COHEN v. PLUTSCHAK et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Francis J. Smith, of Camden, N. J., for the motion.
Samuel G. Cohen, of New Brunswick, N. J., opposed.
This action was originally begun in Middlesex county circuit court; the two defendants being nonresidents of the state of New Jersey, and the plaintiff being a resident.
Service of the summons and complaint was made upon the defendants under the provisions of chapter 232 of the Act of 1924 (N. J. P. L. p. 517), chapter 232, Pamphlet Laws 1927, which latter enactment reads as follows:
N. J. P. L. 1927, pp. 441-443.
The proofs show that service was made on the secretary of state in accordance with the above statute, on October 9, 1929, and forthwith a notice of the service, with a copy of the summons and complaint, was sent to the defendants, by registered mail, and the affidavit of the representative of the secretary of state shows that the return card was signed by the defendant J. Phillip Wright, who received the same and receipted therefor on October 10, 1929, at Preston, Md.
Subsequently application was made to the Middlesex county circuit court by the defendant Wright by petition, alleging diversity of citizenship of plaintiff and petitioner, and that the amount in dispute was in excess of $3,000, and praying for the removal of this suit before trial into this court. Upon this petition, the judge of the said circuit court, on November 13, 1929, made an order of removal, and this cause was duly removed, and the case now appears to be legally here.
The defendant Wright now seeks to set aside the service of the summons and dismiss the suit, on the following grounds, as alleged in the notice:
The grounds alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7 are not argued in the brief filed for defendant Wright, and my recollection is that, at time of argument, they were specifically abandoned.
Grounds 1, 2, and 3, set out in the notice, are practically identical, and in fact all attack the constitutionality of the New Jersey statute heretofore set forth.
Counsel for the defendant Wright contends that the service of process is illegal and in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In the case of Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352, 356, 47 S. Ct. 632, 633, 71 L. Ed. 1091, it is held: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCoy v. Siler
...in other states. See, e.g., Jones v. Paxton, D.C.Minn. 1928, 27 F.2d 364; Moore v. Payne, D.C.W.D.La.1929, 35 F.2d 232; Cohen v. Plutschak, D.C.N.J.1930, 40 F.2d 727; Morrow v. Asher, D.C.N.D.Tex.1932, 55 F.2d 365; State ex rel. Cronkhite v. Belden, 1927, 193 Wis. 145, 211 N.W. 916, 214 N.W......
-
Davidson v. Henry L. Doherty & Co.
...to have received the notice." See, also, Green v. Snyder, 114 Tenn. 100, 84 S.W. 808 (Tenn.); Moore v. Payne, 35 F.2d 232; Cohen v. Plutschak, 40 F.2d 727; Rubin Goldberg, 9 N.J. Misc. 460, 154 A. 535 (N. J.); Shushereba v. Ames, 255 N.Y. 490, 175 N.E. 187; Schilling v. Odlebak, 177 Minn. 9......
- Claude Neon Electrical Products v. Brilliant Tube Sign Co.
-
Kawko v. Howe & Co.
...39:3-15, 39:7-2 et seq. We believe that those provisions now conform to due process; indeed, they have been so held. Cohen v. Plutschak, D.C.D.N.J., 40 F.2d 727. Applying the foregoing principles, the questions seem to be: (1) Did our legislature have the right to prevent Howe from doing in......