Sewchulis v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.

Decision Date11 April 1916
Docket Number193.
PartiesSEWCHULIS v. LEHIGH VALLEY COAL CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Baltrus S. Yankaus, of New York City (Frank J. Felbel, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Allan McCulloh, of New York City (Clifton P. Williamson, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.

Before COXE and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and HOUGH, District Judge.

HOUGH District Judge.

The sole question for review is whether by virtue of section 914 Rev. St. U.S. (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 1537), a summons issuing out of any District Court of the United States within the state of New York may be served anywhere within said state and jurisdiction secured thereby.

The argument for this proposition is that, since said section declares that 'the practice, pleadings and forms and modes of proceeding in civil causes (in the District Courts) shall conform as near as may be to the practice and forms and modes of proceeding existing at the time in like causes in the courts of record of the state within which (said District Courts) are held,' therefore the summons of any District Court sitting in the state of New York is as a matter of practice properly served at any place within the limits of the state, because such service may be made of a summons issuing out of the Supreme Court of the state.

The structural resemblance between the Supreme Court of New York and the four District Courts of the United States sitting in that state is very slight. The state court is one tribunal operating through many parts, sessions, or terms, and having a jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of the state. The District Courts are wholly separate tribunals, whose territorial jurisdiction does not extend beyond the district boundaries. Admittedly the mode of serving process comes under the category of practice and the state court custom may therefore be followed. Amy v. Watertown, 130 U.S 304, 9 Sup.Ct. 530, 32 L.Ed. 946.

But there is a wide difference between the method of serving a summons and the effect of such service when made. The first relates to the 'form, manner, and order of conducting and carrying on suits. ' [1] question of practice at all, but one of jurisdiction, and jurisdiction in turn must be tested by substantive law. The portion of the Revised Statutes under consideration is the successor of the Act of Congress of May 19, 1828, c. 68, Sec 1, 4 Stat. 278, which declared that 'the forms of mesne process * * * and the forms and modes of proceedings in suits in (certain) courts of the United States * * * shall be the same * * * as are now used in the highest court of original and general jurisdiction of the' states in which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Williams v. James
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • July 26, 1940
    ...district court cannot issue process to be served on a person residing in the state, but in another district. Sewchulis v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 2 Cir., 1916, 233 F. 422; J. E. Petty & Co., Inc. v. Dock Contractor Co., 3 Cir., 1922, 283 F. 341. These two cases held that 28 U.S.C.A. § 503, ......
  • Carby v. Greco
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • February 8, 1940
    ...in mind that the method of serving a summons is procedural; the effect of such service when made is jurisdictional. Sewchulis v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 2 Cir., 233 F. 422; Keller v. American Sales Book Co., D.C., 16 F.Supp. 189. In the present case the effect of holding the service valid u......
  • Keller v. American Sales Book Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • September 1, 1936
    ...as made was valid and effective, though made outside this District. Rakauskas v. Erie R. (D.C.) 237 F. 495; Sewchulis v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. (C.C.A.) 233 F. 422, 423; Herriage v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. (D.C.) 11 F.(2d) 671; J. E. Petty & Co. v. Dock Contractor Co. (C.C.A.) 283 F. 341; B......
  • De Dood v. Pullman Co., 298.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 4, 1932
    ...270 U. S. 363, 46 S. Ct. 247, 70 L. Ed. 633, nor process of the court below be served in the Southern district, Sewchulis v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 233 F. 422 (C. C. A. 2); Robertson v. Labor Board, 268 U. S. 619, 622, 45 S. Ct. 621, 69 L. Ed. 1119. The sole issue is whether correspondence......
  • 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