Ellis v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 01 June 1888 |
| Citation | 35 F. 394 |
| Parties | ELLIS v. REYNOLDS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
B. J. Reid, for complainant.
J. O. Parmlee, for defendant.
The order of April 21, 1888, was made by me upon an ex parte application, supported by the plaintiff's affidavit, beyond which I did not then look. That affidavit brought the case within the terms of the act of congress which authorizes such order and service where the suit is brought 'to enforce any legal or equitable lien upon, or claim to, or to remove any incumbrance or lien or cloud upon, the title to real or personal property within the district where such suit is brought. ' Supp. Rev. St. U.S. p. 176; Rev. St. Sec. 738. But upon a careful examination of the bill, I am persuaded that the suit is not within the scope of the statute. The first prayer of the bill is for an account of the lumber, etc., taken by the defendant from the demised premises, and a decree against him for the balance due the plaintiff. The second prayer is for a decree in favor of the plaintiff for the damages he has sustained by reason of the defendant's breaches of covenant. These are the principal prayers, and they disclose the substantial purpose of the suit. They involve, it is plain, only the personal rights and obligations of the parties. The third prayer of the bill, indeed, is for the appointment of a receiver, but this is an auxiliary remedy, invoked as an aid to the principal relief sought. As the bill now stands, I do not see how the suit can be regarded as a proceeding in rem, within the contemplation of the act. This conclusion has been reached after consultation with Judge McKENNAN, and with his concurrence. An now, June 1, 1888, the order upon the defendant made April 21, 1888, that he appear, etc., is rescinded, and the service thereof upon him is set aside.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gage v. Riverside Trust Co.
...receiver, affords no ground for substituted service, since, in these respects, it is a proceeding in personam and not in rem. Ellis v. Reynolds (C.C.) 35 F. 394. The service cannot be upheld on the theory that the suit is one to subject the property of the Riverside Trust Company, as a trus......
-
Waterloo Creamery Co. v. National Bank of Commerce of Toledo, Ohio
... ... Sup.Ct. 81, 54 L.Ed. 1069; Chase v. Wetzlar, 225 ... U.S. 79, 32 Sup.Ct. 659, 56 L.Ed. 990; Shainwald v. Lewis ... (D.C.) 5 Fed. 510; Ellis v. Reynolds (C.C.) 35 ... F. 394; Fayerweather v. Ritch (C.C.) 89 F. 385; ... Jones v. Gould (C.C.A. 6) 149 F. 153, 80 C.C.A. 1; ... Nelson v ... ...
-
Murphy v. Ford Motor Co.
... ... into court, as bringing the res within the control of the ... court. The same principle is found in Ellis v. Reynolds ... (C.C.) 35 F. 394, and in Non-Magnetic Watch Co. v ... Association Horlogere Suisse of Geneva (C.C.) 44 F. 6, ... Jackson v ... ...