Creighton v. Kerr
Citation | 22 L.Ed. 309,20 Wall. 8,87 U.S. 8 |
Parties | CREIGHTON v. KERR |
Decision Date | 01 October 1873 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Colorado; the case being thus:
The statutes of Colorado relating to attachments enact:
This statute being in force, Kerr and another, in May, 1870, sued Creighton in the District Court for Arapahoe County, in Colorado Territory, in attachment. They filed an affidavit, alleging Creighton's non-residence, and that he owed them $5563.
The sheriff returned that he had attached certain shares in the Colorado National Bank, belonging to Creighton, who was not found.
The plaintiffs then filed their declaration, claiming $8000.
No notice of these proceedings was published as required by the statutes.
Subsequently an entry was made in the court as follows:
'Now come the said plaintiffs, by Alfred Sayre, Esq., their attorney, and the said defendant, by Messrs. Charles and Elbert, his attorneys, also comes, and thereupon, on motion of said plaintiff's attorney, the said defendant was ruled to plead ten days from this date.'
On the 19th of October the following:
'And now on this day come Messrs. Charles and Elbert and withdraw their appearance as attorneys for the said defendant, without prejudice to the plaintiff.'
On the 27th of October a judgment was entered, reciting the appearance, its withdrawal 'by leave of the court and without prejudice to said plaintiffs;' and the defendant's failure to plead according to the rule. Damages were assessed by a jury at $12,244. A remittitur was entered for $4244, and judgment taken for $8000. The Supreme Court affirmed this judgment, and the defendant brought the case here.
Mr. J. M. Woolworth, for the plaintiff in error:
I. If we lay out of view the appearance which Charles and Elbert entered for Creighton, it is obvious that this judgment cannot be sustained for a moment, because——
1. No notice of the proceedings was published, nor mailed to the defendant, both of which things the statute render necessary. If neglected, a judgment may not be collaterally avoided, but on error it must be reversed.
2. The writ of attachment by which the suit was brought is for only $5563, and the affidavit on which the writ is issued alleged only that sum to be due. It was not competent for the court to render a judgment for more than was specified in the writ.
II. The fact that Mr. Creighton appeared generally in the action, does not affect the case.
Had the withdrawal of the appearance been general, and unqualified by the words 'without prejudice to the plaintiff,' the case would have stood as if no appearance had been entered.1 The words 'without prejudice,' do not retain to the plaintiff the advantage of the appearance. To give to them that effect would make of no effect the withdrawal. The utmost meaning that can be attributed to them is, that the progress of the cause, and all rights of the plaintiff not resting on the appearance, should remain unaffected by the withdrawal.
Mr. R. T. Merrick, contra.
In the view we take of this case it is not necessary to examine the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the suit or the alleged defects in its commencement. Without intending, in fact, to decide those points, it may be assumed, as is argued by the plaintiff in error, that there was not that notice of the proceedings required by the laws of Colorado. It may be assumed also that in making a claim of damages for $5563 only in the writ of attachment, and in making a claim for $8000 in the declaration, an error was committed. It is insisted that in consequence of this claim in the writ the party would have been justified in assuming that no judgment for a larger amount would be taken against him; and that great injustice might have been done to him. We do not find that the respectable counsel claims that any injustice has actually been done.
But we are of the opinion that there has been no opportunity for the commission of injustice. We find the facts in this respect to be as follows:
After the execution of the writ of attachment the plaintiff filed his declaration claiming damages to the amount of $8000, giving the items of the claim. After this time, viz., on the 12th day of October, the defendant appeared in the suit by his counsel, Messrs. Charles and Elbert. The appearance was general, and, 'thereupon,' as the record says, on motion of the plaintiff's attorney, the defendant was ruled to plead in ten days.
Within the ten days, in which an order to plead had been entered, upon, or upon the faith of, or in consequence of their appearance, the attorneys came into court and withdrew their appearance as attorneys...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Panama R. Co. v. Johnson
... ... In re Winn, 213 U.S. 458, 29 Sup.Ct ... 515, 53 L.Ed. 873; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14, ... 23 Sup.Ct. 237, 47 L.Ed. 366; Creighton v. Kerr, 20 ... Wall. 8, 22 L.Ed. 309. And the appellate court may itself ex ... mero motu raise the objection and dismiss the bill ... ...
-
Suntec Indus. Co. v. United States
...had process been served upon them, and consequently waived all objections to the non-service of process."); Creighton v. Kerr , 87 U.S. 8, 12, 20 Wall. 8, 22 L.Ed. 309 (1873) ("A general appearance waives all question of the service of process."). The same principle applies here; a party wh......
-
Harvey v. Fiduciary Trust Co.
...6 Cush. 354;Jenkins v. York Cliffs Imp. Co., C.C., 110 F. 807;Eldred v. Michigan Inc. Bank, 17 Wall. 545, 21 L.Ed. 685;Creighton v. Kerr, 20 Wall. 8, 22 L.Ed. 309;Rio Grande Irrigation & Colonization Co. v. Gildersleeve, 174 U.S. 603, 19 S.Ct. 761, 43 L.Ed. 1103;Insurance Trust & Agency, Lt......
-
Romaine v. Union Ins. Co.
...U.S. 128; S.C. 5 S.Ct. 796; Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476; O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U.S. 150; Maxwell v. Stewart, 22 Wall. 77; Creighton v. Kerr, 20 Wall. 8; Atkins Disintegrating Co., 18 Wall. 272; S.C. 7 Blatchf. 555, and 1 Ben. 118; Eldred v. Bank, 17 Wall. 545; Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How.......