Harkness v. Hyde

Citation98 U.S. 476,25 L.Ed. 237
Decision Date01 October 1878
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

98 U.S. 476
25 L.Ed. 237
October Term, 1878

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Idaho.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. George H. Williams for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. R. P. Lowe for the defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action to recover damages for maliciously and without probable cause procuring the seizure and detention of property of the plaintiff under a writ of attachment. It was brought in September, 1873, in a district court of the Territory of Idaho for the county of Oneida. The summons, with a copy

Page 477

of the complaint, was soon afterwards served by the sheriff of the county on the defendant, at his place of residence, which was on the Indian reservation, known as the Shoshonee reservation.

The defendant thereupon appeared specially by counsel appointed for the purpose, and moved the court to dismiss the action, on the ground that the service thus made upon him on the Indian reservation was outside of the bailiwick of the sheriff, and without the jurisdiction of the court. Upon stipulation of the parties, the motion was adjourned to the Supreme Court of the Territory, and was there overruled. To the decision an exception was taken. The case was then remanded to the District Court, and the defendant filed an answer to the complaint. Upon the trial which followed, the plaintiff obtained a verdict for $3,500. Upon a motion for a new trial, the amount was reduced to $2,500; for which judgment was entered. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the Territory, the judgment was affirmed. The defendant thereupon brought the case here, and now seeks a reversal of the judgment, for the alleged error of the court in refusing to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction over him.

The act of Congress of March 3, 1863, organizing the Territory of Idaho, provides that it shall not embrace within its limits or jurisdiction any territory of an Indian tribe without the latter's assent, but that 'all such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries, and constitute no part of the Territory of Idaho,' until the tribe shall signify its assent to the President to be included within the Territory. 12 Stat. 808.

On the 3d of July, 1868, a treaty with the Shoshonee Indians was ratified, by which, among other things, that portion of the country within which service of process on the defendant was made in this case was set...

To continue reading

Request your trial
248 cases
  • Brooks v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • January 17, 1911
    ...temporary adjournment thereof for the convenience of the court." Ex parte McNeill, 6 Mass. 245; Torry v. Bast, 3 W. N. C. 63; Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476 (479); Company v. Pinkney, 149 U.S. 194. II. All shareholders of Delaware corporations are entitled to vote for directors. The holders ......
  • State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania Co
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1945
    ...the general provisions of law, a United States District Court cannot issue process beyond the limits of the district, Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476, 25 L.Ed. 237; Ex parte Graham (Fed.Cas. No. 5,657), 3 Wash. (C.C.) 456. And a defendant in a civil suit can be subjected to its jurisdiction i......
  • Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank of Cambridge v. Harper
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 29, 1926
    ...when alleged error in a ruling of the court in either trial before the jury would be open for review." In the case of Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476, 25 L. Ed. 237, the defendant objected to the illegality of the service upon him, and made a motion to quash the service, which was overruled,......
  • Fisher v. Crowley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 7, 1905
    ...stand the decisions of many states and the high authority of the[50 S.E. 425] Supreme Court of the United States. Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476, 25 L. Ed. 237, holds that: "Illegality in the service of process by which jurisdiction is to be obtained is not waived by the special appearance ......
  • 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