Rauber v. Whitney
| Decision Date | 26 September 1890 |
| Docket Number | 14,461 |
| Parties | Rauber et al. v. Whitney et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Tipton Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the appellants' answer to the plea in abatement, and for further proceedings.
W. R Oglebay, G. H. Gifford and J. M. Fippen, for appellants.
This was an action brought by the appellants against the appellees to recover the possession of certain goods described in the complaint. The complaint alleged that the appellees were doing business in Tipton county, Indiana, under the firm name of Whitney, Bowen & Company, and that they had possession of said goods without right, and unlawfully detained the same from the appellants.
The appellees filed a plea in abatement, substantially as follows: That at the time of the commencement of the action each and all of the appellees were, and for many years prior thereto had been, and still are, residents of the city of Cleveland, in the State of Ohio; and that neither before, nor at the time, nor since the filing of the cause of action were appellees, or either of them, residents of the county of Tipton, in the State of Indiana; that at the time of the commencement of the action appellees were, and still are partners in and doing business in the firm name of Whitney, Bowen & Company, in said city of Cleveland, in the State of Ohio; that this is an action of replevin, and that no demand has ever been made of them for any goods or chattels of any kind or nature in Tipton county, Indiana, and that no summons or other writ of any kind or nature has ever been served on them, or either of them, of the filing or pendency of said action, nor have they, or either of them, received any notice whatever of the filing of said complaint; that they have not been in Tipton county since said complaint was filed, nor have they, or either of them, ever resided in said Tipton county.
To this plea in abatement the court overruled a demurrer, whereupon the appellants filed an answer, substantially as follows That the appellees had an agency, store or office in Tipton, Tipton county, Indiana, for the transaction of business, to wit, the buying and selling of ladies', men's and children's boots and shoes; that this cause grows out of, and is connected with, the business of such store, office or agency, and that service of process was duly and legally made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mooney v. Buford & George Mfg. Co.
... ... sufficient,' etc. This has been held to be applicable ... when the defendants are nonresidents of the state. Rauber ... v. Whitney, 125 Ind. 216, 25 N.E. 186. Section 318 (316) ... provides that process against a domestic or foreign ... corporation may be ... ...
-
Davidson v. Henry L. Doherty & Co.
...it proper to cite a few of the cases that recognize that such a statute meets the requirement of “due process of law.” In Rauber v. Whitney, 125 Ind. 216, 25 N. E. 186, the Supreme Court of Indiana considered a statute almost identical in language, and clearly so in effect, with ours. The d......
-
Davidson v. Henry L. Doherty & Co.
...it proper to cite a few of the cases that recognize that such a statute meets the requirement of "due process of law." In Rauber v. Whitney, 125 Ind. 216, 25 N.E. 186, Supreme Court of Indiana considered a statute almost identical in language (and clearly so in effect) with ours. The defend......
-
Edwards v. Van Cleave
...Ins. Co. v. Irwin, 23 Ind. App. 53, 54 N. E. 817;Rush et al. v. Foos Mfg. Co., 20 Ind. App. 515, 51 N. E. 143;Rauber et al. v. Whitney et al., 125 Ind. 216, 25 N. E. 186;Conkey v. Conder et al., 137 Ind. 441, 37 N. E. 132. There is no available error shown by the record. Judgment ...