Harkness v. Hyde
| Citation | 98 U.S. 476,25 L.Ed. 237 |
| Parties | HARKNESS v. HYDE |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
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.
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 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 apart for their 'absolute and undisturbed use and occupation;' and such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as they might be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit amongst them; the United States agreeing that no persons except those mentioned, and such officers, agents, and employees of the government as might be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, should ever be permitted 'to pass over, settle upon, or reside' in the territory reserved, and the Indians relinquishing their title to any other territory within the United States. 15...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. State
...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
...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
...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
...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 ......