Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1879-12-22

rhs sas Yraseisss "Kxehasgs"
AMER she Old Weils.varge-Ar.
gument o. Ceust J~urisdicsien
and Assaehmens LAWS.

This morning there was an interesting
case up before the District Court.
The suit was brought by the San
Francisco Exchanges against the old
wslls-Farso Mining Company, an attach
msnt issued and . levy made on certain
funds In the Sbshf's. hands, deposited
by Trssdvsll. a. agent for the old Wells.
Fargo mine. to redeem the property Of
the mine sold under execution In suit Of
d. E. Mccarthy.
Mr.. Lynch Of San Francisco entered a
special appearance for the purpose Of
moving the Court to.dismiss the case for
want OF jurisdiction. and that the attach
ment be released.
Counselor Deal, In behalf Of the Er.
change. objected 10 this special appear.
anoe on the ground that It was inadmis-
sible under our laws and practice. II .
defendant wanted an attachment released
be must appear in the case. The plant.
if In this action wa very anxious to get
an appearance OF the defendant in the
suit.
The court decided that the motion to
dismiss could be made by Q special ap-
psaranoe such as made BY Mr.. Lynch.
II the court had no jurisdiction Of course
the attachment would fall with the suit.
After more sparring between the At
torniss Mr.. Lynch stated his grounds
OF objection 10 the jurisdiction Of the
court In the case. The complaint
showed both parties to be California In
corporations. Neither domiciled In Ne
vsda nor resided here. The contracts
on which suit Was brought for 1919 were
made In San Francisco. 1t did not appear
from any OF the proceedings that the de-
PENDANT had any property in Nevada.
There was not an averrment OF o single
fact which would give the court jurisdic-
ton where Il had not been acquired BY
personal service OF the summons. This
had not been done In this case % the re-
turns showed that the defendant had
been served by mail. It must either APP
pear that the plaintiff was q resident OF
Nevada or that the defendant had pro.
perty here.
At this time Mr.. Lynch referred to
the affidavit for attachment, and was in.
stantly stopped by Mr.. Deal, who In.
sisted that hs must appear in the case
fully before the matter OF the attach.
ment could be argued. As to the juris-
diction Of the Court, II was given by the
Consultation. The amount OF the claim
wa over $500, and the Constitution
said expressly: "Ths District Courts In
the several Judicial Districts OF this State
shall have original jurisdiction In all
cases In equity; also. all cases al law
which involve the title OF right OF pos.
session OF real property or mining
claims" etc.
The Court intimated that II would
hear no motion to discharge the attach.
ment unless Mr.. Lynch fully appeared
for the defendant in the case.
Mr.. Lynch continued his argument:
The State had jurisdiction over Its own
citizens, both In It's own territory and
without IL but 1t could not acquire
jurisdiction over citizens Of other States
unless It appeared afarmatively that
such citizens had property within this
State. This did not appear Of record In
this case and II II did, they could only
acquire Jurisdiction to use that property
to satisfy o demand OF q citizen OF Ne.
vada.
The Court here asked how II would be
II n Californian owed another Cali.
fornian, and the former had NO prop.
srty In California but had In Neyada2
Mr.. Lynch thought supplemental pro.
oeedings the remedy, and an order OF
the Court to apply the proceeds OF the
sale Of that property to the payment OF
the debt.
The Court asked Mr.. Lynch II be
thought the Courts Of California would
have any jurisdiction over realty in Ne
vada?
The question was not answered.
Mr.. Lynch's last point was that citi.
gems Of another State had no right to use
the attachment laws Of this State against
citizens OF another State.
The Court did not care 10 hear Mr..
Deal argue the opposite side Of the ques.
ton. Mr.. Lynch was informed that IL
be wished to set aside the attachment
for irreeularity he must appear In the
case and mako another motion.
Lynch-But that must follow. II the
Court has no jurisdiction in the case.
Court cannot dismiss Il for irregu-
larities on this motion.
The motion to dismiss was denied.
The Court said, however. that whether
II would enter judgment In the case
against the defendant was quite another
matter, which was not passed upon ct
all. The remedy Of suitors by attach.
ment was statutory and the Court was
ready to entertain Q motion to dismiss
for irregularities 10 the defendant wished
to enter such o motion. No such motion
was made, as Il would have involved the
appearance OF the defendant In the case.