Holyoke & South Hadley Falls Ice Co. v. Ambden

• Decision Date: 05 April 1893
• Docket Number: 3,620.
• Citation: 55 F. 593
• Parties: HOLYOKE & SOUTH HADLEY FALLS ICE CO. v. AMBDEN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

55 F. 593

HOLYOKE & SOUTH HADLEY FALLS ICE CO. v. AMBDEN.

No. 3,620.

United States Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 5, 1893

William H. Brooks and Henry A. Wyman, for plaintiff,

Gilbert A. Davis and D. E. Webster, for defendant,

CARPENTER District Judge.

This is an action at law, originally brought by writ of summons from the superior court of the commonwealth of Massachusetts for the county of Hampden, sued out by the plaintiff, a corporation of Massachusetts, against the defendant, who is a citizen of Vermont. The action was by the defendant removed into this court, and is now heard on his plea in abatement as follows:

'And now comes the defendant, and moves that said writ and action may abate for the following reasons: The plaintiff's process was served upon this defendant in the state of Massachusetts, and not out of said state; and at the time of the service of the plaintiff's process upon him in this action the defendant was a citizen of the state of Vermont, and was traveling through the state of Massachusetts from his home and residence in Windsor, in the state of Vermont, to Hartford, in the state of Connecticut, at the request and on the procurement of a citizen of Massachusetts, for the purpose of testifying as a witness in a suit then pending in behalf of said citizen of Massachusetts in the superior court for Hartford county Connecticut, in behalf of said citizen, and for no other purpose whatsoever; and that the service made upon the defendant in this action while so traveling was illegal, and that by said illegal service this court acquired no jurisdiction of the defendant; and the defendant avers that no other or different service of the process in this action was ever made upon him than aforesaid, and that he, the defendant, never accepted service of said process.'

To this plea the plaintiff has filed a reply, wherein he traverses the plea, and also demurs to the same, and both issues have been heard by the court under the written agreement of the parties.

I find on the evidence that the allegations of the plea are true and the question now to be determined is whether the service so made on the defendant was illegal. The defendant makes two points. The first is that the process herein is an interference with intercourse or commerce among the several states, the exclusive power to regulate which is devolved on the national government; and he cites Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100, 10 S.Ct. 681; Lyng v. Michigan, 135 U.S. 161, 10 S.Ct. 725; In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545, 11 S.Ct. 865; and Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47, 11 S.Ct. 851. These cases seem to me only to decide that a state may not lay a tax on passengers passing through the state, and may not in...