Reifsnider v. American Imp. Pub. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1891 |
| Citation | 45 F. 433 |
| Parties | REIFSNIDER v. AMERICAN IMP. PUB. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Geo. D Reynolds, Frank E. Richey, and W. M. Kinsey, for plaintiff.
Frank Dawson & Garvin, for defendants.
The contention that the appearance of the defendant company in the state court for the purpose of filing a petition and bond for removal was, of necessity, a general appearance, and that the foreign corporation thereby submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court, and waived all right to question the legality of the service had upon it, is not tenable. It is true that an appearance for removal under the twelfth section of the judiciary act of 1789 was held to have the effect claimed in Sayles v. Insurance Co., 2 Curt. 212; and in Sweeney v. Coffin, 1 Dill. 78, Judge TREAT held that the filing of a petition and bond for removal was an appearance, within the meaning of the twelfth section of the old judiciary act, and that no other appearance was necessary. But it has been very generally held, under subsequent removal acts, that an appearance merely to file a petition and bond for removal does not preclude a party from subsequently moving to quash the service of process, on the ground that the service was illegal, or otherwise insufficient to warrant a judgment. In Atchison v Morris, 11 F. 582, Judge DRUMMOND denied that a party by removing a cause to a federal court thereby waived his right to question the validity of the service by which jurisdiction had been acquired. 'It may have been,' says Judge DRUMMOND, 'among other reasons, for the very purpose of objecting to the service of summons the defendant requested that the cause should be removed to the federal court because in a proper case a party has the right to the opinion of the federal court on every question that may arise in the case, not only in relation to the pleadings and merits, but to the service of process; and it would be contrary to the manifest intent of the act of congress to hold that a party who has a right to remove a cause is foreclosed as to any question which the federal court can be called upon under the law to decide. ' Judges McCRARY and TREAT in a case tried in this court (Small v. Montgomery, 17 F. 865) also decided that an appearance for removal is not a waiver of any objection to the service whereby the removing party was brought into court; and the same point has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ahlhauser v. Butler
... ... Iron Co., 44 F. 31; Bentlif v ... Finance Corp., Id. 667; Reifsnider v. Publishing ... Co., 45 F. 433; Forrest v. Railroad Co., 47 F ... 1; ... ...
- Williams v. New York, P. & NR Co.
-
Louden Machinery Co. v. American Malleable Iron Co.
...1 Sup.Ct. 354, 27 L.Ed. 222; St. Louis Wire Mill Co. v. Wire Co. (C.C.) 32 F. 802; Maxwell v. Railroad (C.C.) 34 F. 286; Reifsnider v. Publishing Co. (C.C.) 45 F. 433; Clews v. Iron Co. (C.C.) 44 F. 31; Doe v. Co., 104 F. 684, 44 C.C.A. 128,; Cooper Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U.S. 727-734, 5 Sup.......
-
Morris v. Graham
...and this was made upon a member of congress while on his way to the seat of government, and plainly illegal. In Reifsnider v. Publishing Co., 45 F. 433, the service was made upon the president of a corporation, incidentally within the state on private business. The corporation was never wit......