Eames v. Kaiser

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFULLER
Citation12 S.Ct. 302,142 U.S. 488,35 L.Ed. 1091
Decision Date11 January 1892
PartiesEAMES et al. v. KAISER

142 U.S. 488
12 S.Ct. 302
35 L.Ed. 1091
EAMES et al.
v.
KAISER.
January 11, 1892.

STATEMENT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER.

This action was originally commenced in the district court of Tarrant county, Tex., by Samuel Kaiser against H. B.

Page 489

Claflin & Co., alleged to be a firm composed of plaintiffs in error and H. B. Claflin and L. Levinson & Co., another firm, composed of L., Michael, and Max Levinson, all averred to be citizens of New York, to recover damages for the wrongful issue and levy of two writs of attachment against Kaiser, one in favor of H. B. Claflin & Co., and the other in favor of L. Levinson & Co. These attachment suits were commenced in the circuit court, and the affidavits upon which the writs issued alleged that Kaiser 'was about to convert his property, or a part thereof, into money for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors.'

A citation was served by copy, with a certified copy of the petition, by the delivery thereof to a member of each of the defendant firms in New York on July 17 and 18, 1883, under articles 1230 and 1234 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas. 1 Sayles' Civil St. Tex. p. 418.

September 20, 1883, the defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction, and also moved to quash the process; and, with said plea and the motion to quash, filed general and special demurrers and a general denial. On the same day defendants filed petition and bond for the removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States, and it was accordingly removed on the 21st of September. The original attachment suits of Claflin & Co. and L. Levinson & Co. were pending in the circuit court, and in the case commenced by Claflin & Co. Kaiser had pleaded his damages in reconvention; and, after this suit was removed into the circuit court, Claflin & Co. moved that Kaiser be required to elect which suit for damages he would prosecute, and, the motion being granted, Kaiser elected to prosecute this independent action. On the 21st of January, 1884, Kaiser moved the court to quash the plea of Claflin & Co. and Levinson & Co. to the jurisdiction, and strike out their motion to quash, and on the 28th of that month the motion was sustained as to

Page 490

Claflin & Co. and overruled as to Levinson & Co., the court being of opinion that the plea and motion had been waived by Claflin & Co.'s motion to require plaintiff to elect; and thereupon the plea to the jurisdiction was quashed, and the motion to set aside the service was stricken out as to Claflin & Co. Threafter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co., 1,789.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 14, 1904
    ...681] exclusion of the question propounded to the witness, McNeece on cross-examination. An authority directly in point is Eames v. Kaiser, 142 U.S. 488, 12 Sup.Ct. 302, 35 L.Ed. 1091. As applicable to this matter, it is said in the foregoing opinion that a fair and full cross-examination of......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Raines
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 10, 1909
    ...a portion of a material transaction he may be cross examined in full detail concerning the omitted portion. 91 F. 614; 206 Pa.St. 135; 142 U.S. 488; 110 U.S. 47; 42 Ill.App. 225; 112 Ind. 494; 28 Ore. 1. See also 9 Mich. 381; 37 Ill. 465; 89 Ala. 563; 94 Mich. 343; 69 F. 808; 83 Md. 536; 70......
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1899
    ...v. State, 43 Tex. 138; Addison v. State, 48 Ala. 478; Home Benefit Assn. v. Sargent, 142 U.S. 691, 12 S.Ct. 332; Eames v. Kaiser, 142 U.S. 488, 12 S.Ct. 302; Gilmer v. Higley, 110 U.S. 47, 3 S.Ct. 471.) An instruction which authorizes the jury to consider matters foreign to the issue made b......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Raines
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 18, 1908
    ...Id. 550; 11 Pick. 269; 2 Wend. 166; 19 Ga. 285; 26 Mich. 432; 10 Id. 460; 37 Ill. 465; 89 Ala. 563; 94 Mich. 343; 69 F. 808; 83 Md. 536; 142 U.S. 488; 110 Id. 47; 14 Cal. 19. OPINION [86 Ark. 308] MCCULLOCH, J. Plaintiff 's intestate was run over and killed by defendant's train, and she sue......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co., 1,789.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 14, 1904
    ...681] exclusion of the question propounded to the witness, McNeece on cross-examination. An authority directly in point is Eames v. Kaiser, 142 U.S. 488, 12 Sup.Ct. 302, 35 L.Ed. 1091. As applicable to this matter, it is said in the foregoing opinion that a fair and full cross-examination of......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Raines
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 10, 1909
    ...a portion of a material transaction he may be cross examined in full detail concerning the omitted portion. 91 F. 614; 206 Pa.St. 135; 142 U.S. 488; 110 U.S. 47; 42 Ill.App. 225; 112 Ind. 494; 28 Ore. 1. See also 9 Mich. 381; 37 Ill. 465; 89 Ala. 563; 94 Mich. 343; 69 F. 808; 83 Md. 536; 70......
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1899
    ...v. State, 43 Tex. 138; Addison v. State, 48 Ala. 478; Home Benefit Assn. v. Sargent, 142 U.S. 691, 12 S.Ct. 332; Eames v. Kaiser, 142 U.S. 488, 12 S.Ct. 302; Gilmer v. Higley, 110 U.S. 47, 3 S.Ct. 471.) An instruction which authorizes the jury to consider matters foreign to the issue made b......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Raines
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 18, 1908
    ...Id. 550; 11 Pick. 269; 2 Wend. 166; 19 Ga. 285; 26 Mich. 432; 10 Id. 460; 37 Ill. 465; 89 Ala. 563; 94 Mich. 343; 69 F. 808; 83 Md. 536; 142 U.S. 488; 110 Id. 47; 14 Cal. 19. OPINION [86 Ark. 308] MCCULLOCH, J. Plaintiff 's intestate was run over and killed by defendant's train, and she sue......
  • 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