Warner v. Maddox
Decision Date | 07 October 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 174,177.,176,174 |
Citation | 68 F. Supp. 27 |
Parties | WARNER et al. v. MADDOX et al. CASEY v. SAME (two cases). |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Douglas A. Robertson (of Williams Robertson & Sackett), of Lynchburg, Va., John A. Danaher, and A. K. Shipe, both of Washington, D. C., for Emma Gladys Warner and Marion Anita LaMay.
Stephen J. Rudd, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for Edward F. Casey and Dorothy M. Casey.
M. F. Trader and W. H. Jordan, both of Lynchburg, Va., for Irving J. LaMay, Administrator.
E. Marshall Frost (of Caskie, Frost & Watts), of Lynchburg, Va., for Henry Dorison Maddox and M. M. Maddox.
When a nonresident of Virginia is involved in an accident while operating a motor vehicle on a highway in this state, a Virginia statute, Virginia Code, § 2154(70) (i), provides for substituted service of process upon such nonresident in any action which may be brought against such nonresident for damages growing out of such accident. The pertinent provisions of this statute are as follows: * * *"
The constitutionality of this statute has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Carroll v. Hutchinson, 172 Va. 43, 200 S.E. 644.
The instant cases grow out of a collision which occurred in this District between an automobile operated by a citizen of this District of Virginia, and an automobile operated by a citizen of Connecticut, and as a result of the collision it is alleged that the Connecticut operator was instantly killed and the four passengers in his automobile sustained personal injuries. A personal representative of the deceased Connecticut operator has qualified in Connecticut, but not in Virginia. The instant cases are actions in which the Connecticut passengers have undertaken to sue in this court both...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beck v. Lund's Fisheries, Inc.
...Co., 114 N.J.L. 561, 178 A. 177; In re Roche's Estate, 16 N.J. 579, 109 A.2d 655; Hunt v. Tague, 205 Md. 369, 109 A.2d 80; Warner v. Maddox, D.C.Va., 68 F.Supp. 27; Fazio v. American Auto. Ins. Co., D.C.La., 136 F.Supp. 184; In re Wilcox' Estate, Ohio App., 137 N.E.2d 301. The above cited c......
-
Fazio v. American Automobile Insurance Company
...before us. See 155 A.L.R. 345; Hendrix v. Jenkins, D.C.Ga., 120 F.Supp. 879; Wittman v. Hanson, D.C.Minn., 100 F.Supp. 747; Warner v. Maddox, D.C.Va., 68 F.Supp. 27; Commonwealth of Kentucky, etc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 6 Cir., 112 F.2d 352; Harris v. Owens, 142 Ohio St. 379, 52 N.E.2d 5......
-
Rodgers v. Irvine
...Dobie on Federal Procedure, at page 193; Mecom v. Fitzsimmons etc., 284 U.S. 183, 186-187, 52 S.Ct. 84, 76 L.Ed. 233; And see Warner v. Maddox, D.C., 68 F.Supp. 27. In the instant case the motion is to substitute as plaintiff an administrator c.t.a. in the person of Ellis B. Grady, Jr., who......
-
Wilson v. Milligan, 3095
...it must not be applied to persons who are not clearly within its purview. Conway v. Spence, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 426; Warner v. Maddox, W.D.Va.1946, 68 F.Supp. 27. Upon the above authorities, we therefore hold that in order for a defendant to be amenable to service of process under the V......