Gracie v. Palmer

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMARSHALL
Citation21 U.S. 699,8 Wheat. 699,5 L.Ed. 719
PartiesGRACIE and others, Plaintiffs in Error , v. PALMER and others, Defendants in Error
Decision Date01 March 1823

21 U.S. 699
5 L.Ed. 719
8 Wheat. 699
GRACIE and others, Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
PALMER and others, Defendants in Error.
March Term, 1823
March 5th.

Mr. Webster moved to dismiss the writ of error in this case, for want of jurisdiction. He stated, that the plaintiffs below, Palmer and others, were described to be aliens, and subjects of the king of Great Britain, and the defendants, Gracie and others, to be citizens of the State of New-York; and the suit was brought in the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania. It did not appear, that the defendants were inhabitants of, or found in the District of Pennsylvania, at the time of serving the writ; and he, therefore, contended, under the 11th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20. that no civil suit could be brought against them by original process in that District.

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL stated, that the uniform construction, under the clause of the act referred to, had been, that it was not necessary to aver, on the record, that the defendant was an inhabitant of the District, or found therein.

That

Page 700

it was sufficient if the Court appeared to have jurisdiction by the citizenship or alienage of the parties. The exemption from arrest in a District in which the defendant was not an inhabitant, or in which he was not found at the time of serving the process, was the privilege of the defendant, which he might waive by a voluntary appearance. That if process was returned by the marshal as served upon him within the District, it was sufficient; and that where the defendant voluntarily appeared in the Court below, without taking the exception, it was an admission of the service, and a waiver of any further inquiry into the matter.

Motion denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Fisher v. Crowley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 7, 1905
    ...et al. v. McLean, 13 How. 151, 14 L. Ed. 91-[50 S.E. 429] Farrar & Brown v. The U. S., 3 Pet. 459, 7 L. Ed. 741; Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699, 5 L. Ed. 719; Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 428, 2 L. Ed. 666; Hickam v. Larkey, 6 Grat. 210; Wynn v. Wyatt, Adm'r, 11 Leigh, 584; Steele v. Ha......
  • United States v. Julius Mayer, No. 462
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1914
    ...while consent cannot give jurisdiction over the subject-matter, restrictions as to place, time, etc., can be waived. Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699, 5 L. ed. 719; Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 331, 9 L. ed. 1093, 1105; Ayers v. Watson, 113 U. S. 594, 598, 28 L. ed. 1093, 1094, 5 Sup. Ct .......
  • Gerling v. Baltimore Ohio Co, No. 67
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1894
    ...with which is waived by a defendant who does not seasonably object that the suit is brought in the wrong district. Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699; Taylor v. Longworth, 14 Pet. 172, 174; Railway Co. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127, 11 Sup. Ct. 982; Railway Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 12 Sup. Ct. 90......
  • Iowa Lillooet Gold Min. Co. v. Bliss, 192.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • March 29, 1906
    ...appearing generally to the suit and not claiming the benefit of such privilege or exemption. This was early so ruled in Gracie V. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699, 5. L.Ed. 719, which was a suit brought by an alien against a citizen of a state in a district other than that of his residence. That ruling......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Fisher v. Crowley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 7, 1905
    ...et al. v. McLean, 13 How. 151, 14 L. Ed. 91-[50 S.E. 429] Farrar & Brown v. The U. S., 3 Pet. 459, 7 L. Ed. 741; Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699, 5 L. Ed. 719; Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 428, 2 L. Ed. 666; Hickam v. Larkey, 6 Grat. 210; Wynn v. Wyatt, Adm'r, 11 Leigh, 584; Steele v. Ha......
  • United States v. Julius Mayer, No. 462
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1914
    ...while consent cannot give jurisdiction over the subject-matter, restrictions as to place, time, etc., can be waived. Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699, 5 L. ed. 719; Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 331, 9 L. ed. 1093, 1105; Ayers v. Watson, 113 U. S. 594, 598, 28 L. ed. 1093, 1094, 5 Sup. Ct .......
  • Gerling v. Baltimore Ohio Co, No. 67
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1894
    ...with which is waived by a defendant who does not seasonably object that the suit is brought in the wrong district. Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699; Taylor v. Longworth, 14 Pet. 172, 174; Railway Co. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127, 11 Sup. Ct. 982; Railway Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 12 Sup. Ct. 90......
  • Iowa Lillooet Gold Min. Co. v. Bliss, 192.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • March 29, 1906
    ...appearing generally to the suit and not claiming the benefit of such privilege or exemption. This was early so ruled in Gracie V. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699, 5. L.Ed. 719, which was a suit brought by an alien against a citizen of a state in a district other than that of his residence. That ruling......
  • 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