Jones v. Andrews

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRADLEY
Citation19 L.Ed. 935,10 Wall. 327,77 U.S. 327
PartiesJONES v. ANDREWS
Decision Date01 December 1870

77 U.S. 327
19 L.Ed. 935
10 Wall. 327
JONES
v.
ANDREWS.
December Term, 1870

Page 328

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Western District of Tennessee; the case being thus:

The Judiciary Act of 17891 gives the Circuit Courts jurisdiction where the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought and a citizen of another State; and enacts that no civil suit shall be brought in them against an inhabitant of the United States by original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he may be found at the time of serving the writ.

By the act of February 28, 1839,2 it is, however, enacted

'That where in any suit in law or equity, commenced in any court of the United States, there shall be several defendants, any one or more of whom shall not be inhabitants of, or found within, the district where the suit is brought, or shall not voluntarily appear thereto, it shall be lawful for the court to entertain jurisdiction, and proceed to the trial and adjudication of such suit between the parties who may be properly before it; but the judgment or decree rendered therein, shall not conclude or prejudice other parties not regularly served with process, or not voluntarily appearing to answer,' &c.

These provisions as to jurisdiction being in force, one Joseph J. Andrews, owner of a hotel in Memphis, leased it for five years, from 1st of January, 1859, to P. Reed and H. W. Bryson; these last giving their notes for the amount of the rent. After Reed and Bryson had possession for some time, they sub-let it to a certain Stephen M. Jones, at the same rent which they had paid, and took his notes to themselves for the same sum that they were bound to pay Andrews by their own. The troubles of the rebellion coming on, matters got disarranged. Jones, according to his own account, having left Memphis, temporarily got shut out of the town by the Federal army, and during this enforced absence was dispossessed of the hotel and greatly injured by Andrews, who seized and sold very valuable personal property of his left on the premises. However these facts

Page 329

(which Andrews denied) might have been, it was admitted that the rent not being long paid in form, Andrews sued Reed and Bryson on their notes given to him, and got judgment by default. On this judgment so got, he sued out a writ of garnishment for the professed purpose of seizing in their hands the notes of Jones. Hereupon Jones filed a bill in the same court, the court below, alleging that Reed and Bryson had transferred his notes (Jones's), given to them for the sub-lease, to Andrews in payment of their own notes to him for the lease in chief; that Andrews had thus no claim against Reed and Bryson when he sued them; that the judgment recovered by him against them was by collusion, and was contrived for the purpose of garnisheeing his, Jones's, notes, pretended to be in their hands, and that all this was done to avoid on the part of Andrews a direct suit against him, the complainant, Jones, by reason of the fact that as against Andrews, he, the complainant, Jones, had a good defence to the notes and a set-off (on account of the seizure and sale of his furniture, and expulsion of him from the premises), that would largely exceed the amount of the notes. His bill accordingly prayed for an injunction against the garnishee proceedings, for the delivery up of his notes, and for the establishment of his set-off against Andrews.

The suit was entitled at the beginning,

'Stephen M. Jones, citizen and resident of Richmond County, Georgia,

vs.

Joseph Andrews, citizen and resident of City and County and State of New York; P. Reed and H. W. Bryson, both citizens and residents of Shelby County, Tennessee.'

And the prayer of the bill began thus:

'The premises considered, complainant prays that Joseph Andrews, a resident and citizen of the city, county, and State of New York, and the said Reed and Bryson, both of whom are residents of Shelby County, in the State of Tennessee, be made parties defendant, by due process and publication,' &c.

Page 330

Andrews (the resident of New York) was not served with process; but, as the record stated,

'Comes and moves the court here to dismiss the bill of the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction, apparent on the face of it;' and for causes for such motion showed (among others),

(1.) The bill...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 practice notes
  • McLean v. McLean, No. 6631.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 8, 1940
    ...Yorke, 3 N.D. 343, 55 N.W. 1095;Gans v. Beasley, 4 N.D. 140, 59 N.W. 714;Welch v. Ayres et al., 43 Neb. 326, 61 N.W. 635;Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 19 L.Ed. 935;Goldstein v. Peter Fox Sons Co., 22 N.D. 636, 135 N.W. 180, 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 566; Dallas v. Luster, 27 N.D. 450, 147 N.W. 95; ......
  • Nickels v. Pullman Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • August 7, 1920
    ...128, 11 Sup.Ct. 982, 35 L.Ed. 659; Western Loan Co. v. Butte Min. Co., 210 U.S. 368, 370, 28 Sup.Ct. 720, 52 L.Ed. 1101; Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 332, 19 L.Ed. 935), and that the submission by the plaintiff to the federal court of the question of the validity of the service of the pr......
  • Romaine v. Union Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • August 9, 1886
    ...practice, of taking objection to the service of process, without such a waiver of this privilege as was enforced in Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, [28 F. 627] I have thought it best to look into it, particularly as I find that the practice of the federal courts has not been at all uniform,......
  • Hatcher v. Hendrie & Bolthoff Mfg. & Supply Co., 1,826.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 28, 1904
    ...is concerned. Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450, 460, 16 L.Ed. 749; Riggs v. Johnson Co., 6 Wall. 166, 187, 18 L.Ed. 768; Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 333, 19 L.Ed. 935; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494, 498, 26 L.Ed. 354; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 100 U.S. 276, 4 Sup.Ct. 27, 28 L.Ed. 145; Pac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
49 cases
  • McLean v. McLean, No. 6631.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 8, 1940
    ...Yorke, 3 N.D. 343, 55 N.W. 1095;Gans v. Beasley, 4 N.D. 140, 59 N.W. 714;Welch v. Ayres et al., 43 Neb. 326, 61 N.W. 635;Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 19 L.Ed. 935;Goldstein v. Peter Fox Sons Co., 22 N.D. 636, 135 N.W. 180, 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 566; Dallas v. Luster, 27 N.D. 450, 147 N.W. 95; ......
  • Nickels v. Pullman Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • August 7, 1920
    ...128, 11 Sup.Ct. 982, 35 L.Ed. 659; Western Loan Co. v. Butte Min. Co., 210 U.S. 368, 370, 28 Sup.Ct. 720, 52 L.Ed. 1101; Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 332, 19 L.Ed. 935), and that the submission by the plaintiff to the federal court of the question of the validity of the service of the pr......
  • Romaine v. Union Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • August 9, 1886
    ...practice, of taking objection to the service of process, without such a waiver of this privilege as was enforced in Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, [28 F. 627] I have thought it best to look into it, particularly as I find that the practice of the federal courts has not been at all uniform,......
  • Hatcher v. Hendrie & Bolthoff Mfg. & Supply Co., 1,826.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 28, 1904
    ...is concerned. Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450, 460, 16 L.Ed. 749; Riggs v. Johnson Co., 6 Wall. 166, 187, 18 L.Ed. 768; Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 333, 19 L.Ed. 935; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494, 498, 26 L.Ed. 354; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 100 U.S. 276, 4 Sup.Ct. 27, 28 L.Ed. 145; Pac......
  • 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