Edgell v. Felder
| Decision Date | 23 June 1897 |
| Docket Number | 613. |
| Citation | 84 F. 69 |
| Parties | EDGELL et al v. FELDER. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
This was a bill in equity by Thomas J. Felder, a citizen of Georgia, residing in the Southern district thereof, against Alfred N. Hehre, a citizen of New York, George S. Edgell, and Austin Corbin, Jr., also citizens of New York, the New England Mortgage Security Company, a citizen of Massachusetts, and five corporations existing under the laws of the kingdom of Great Britain. The defendant George S Edgell was sued as surviving partner of the firm which was dissolved by the death of Austin Corbin, Sr., and also as co-partner with Austin Corbin, Jr., composing the present partnership doing business as the Corbin Banking Company. The purpose of the suit was to recover compensation for services rendered by the plaintiff individually for the sales and renting of lands under contract from May 1, 1894, to the date of the formation of a partnership between complainant and the defendant Alfred N. Hehre, on or about September 1, 1895; and also for the recovery of complainant's unsettled interest in the earnings of the partnership of Felder & Hehre from September 1, 1895, until the death of Austin Corbin, Sr. June 6, 1896; and also for the recovery of the earnings of Felder and Hehre alleged to be due from the new firm composed of Edgell and Austin Corbin, Jr., from June 6, 1896, to about December 1, 1896. The bill alleged that Alfred N. Hehre was made a defendant because he refused to join as a party plaintiff, and that he fraudulently conspired with the other defendants to defeat the recovery of what was due to the firm of Felder & Hehre. No decree, however, was asked against him. The defendants, being nonresidents of the state, entered a special or limited appearance 'for the purpose of making a motion to dissolve the injunction and discharge the receiver appointed in this cause, as well as also to submit a motion for the dismissal of said bill for the want of jurisdiction in the court. ' The defendants accordingly filed motions to dissolve the injunction, discharge the receiver, and dismiss the bill, setting up that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the cause under the statutes of the United States; that the suit could not be brought in the district of complainant's residence--First, because the defendant Hehre was a real complainant, so far as the recovery sought was for what was due to the firm of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Case v. Mountain Timber Co.
... ... 127, 11 Sup.Ct. 982, 35 L.Ed. 659; ... Henderson v. Carbondale Coal & Coke Co., 140 U.S ... 25, 11 Sup.Ct. 691, 35 L.Ed. 332; Edgell et al. v ... Felder, 84 F. 69, 28 C.C.A. 382; Hupfeld v ... Automaton, etc. (C.C.) 66 F. 788; Lowry v. Tile, ... etc. (C.C. 98 F. 817; Briggs v ... ...
-
Gulf Smokeless Coal Co. v. Sutton, Steele & Steele
...Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 332, 19 L. Ed. 935; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127, 11 S. Ct. 982, 35 L. Ed. 659; Edgell v. Felder (C. C. A. 5th) 84 F. 69; Christensen v. Christensen (D. C.) 14 F.(2d) 475; Nelson v. Husted (C. C.) 182 F. 921; Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, vol.......
-
Bush v. Block
...to the merits of the case. Such appearance is, in effect, general, even if the moving party says his appearance is special only. [Edgell v. Felder, 84 F. 69; Wicecarver v. Mercantile etc. Ins. Co., 137 247, 255, 117 S.W. 698.] The motion filed was an absolute submission to the jurisdiction ......
-
Barnes v. W.U. Tel. Co.
...no reason to quash the service. Ratione cessante, cessat ipsa lex. See Hill v. Mendenhall, 21 Wall, 454, 22 L.Ed. 616, and Edgell v. Felder, 28 C.C.A. 382, 84 F. 69. defendant might very well have conformed to the rule announced in Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476, 25 L.Ed. 237. There Mr. Just......