The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-10-17

and others. The matter contalneu
1.-THE decision is held by lawyers 10
very important aud of special iut9re
here, because of its rel .tion to Il
practice. For these reasons We PM
lish it in full:
Lloyd AspinWali ct d.
vs.
W. & J. V. R. 3. Co. ct al.
r. N. Baskin for Plaintiffs.
Sutherland & Mcbride fer Deiendar
w. & j. V. R. r. Co
This is an action brought by th
plaintiffs to recover upon a judgmsr
rendered by the New YORK suprem
court. a court having general jlri'
diction.
The defendant, the WAsatch an
Jordan Valley Railroad Company
denies that any judgment against it G
jointly with the defendant Charles "
5co6eld, appears by the record an
proceedings in said supreme cour
cow remaining or at any time mad
or existing, or that any such judg
ment still remains in full force.
The record shows that the defend
ant. Ohss. w. 6coield, was servet
with process on ne 9th day OF June
1880, and that a slnmons was serves
on the defendant railroad compan,
by delivering q copy thereof to thI
president OF said defendant company
Charles 4. Scofeld, personally, ant
leaving the same with him.
The proofs on the trial OF the cas-,
in this court show that the de!endan
railroad company is a company in
corporated under the lave OF the Ter.
ritory OF Utah; that lis president wa
Charles w. Scofield at the time sale
suit was brought.
The plaintiffs rely exclusively upor
the New York supreme court judg
ment as a ground for the recovery il
this action, no proof having been
given OF the original cause OF action
upon which the suit in New York wa
brought.
The defendant, The Wasatch anC
Jordan Valley Railroad Company,
relies upon the following grounds o.
defense to said New York Judgment:
First-That the defendant ccm-
pany is foreign corporation to the
State OF New York, and had therefore
no habitat in that state for the pur.
poses OF jurisdiction.
Second-Thst service of process
was not and could not have been
made on it personally for the purpose
of comforting jurisdiction on the said
supreme court
Third-Tbst the service OF process
made in the case. snd upon which the
said court assumed to take jurisdic-
ton of the case. was made upon one
Charles Il. Scofeld, as the president
Of the defendant company, WheD, as
the proofs in this case show, Charles
W. Scofeld, and not Charles II. Sco-
field, was the president OF the defend
ant company.
The record OF the New York gu
preme court shows that one of the de.
PENDANTS to said case was Charles w.
Scofeld, and that service was made
upon him under that name. The
service was made by one Thomas
Jackson, who made his return thereof
On oath as required by the laws of
New York, and certified under oath
hat he knew the person served as the
aforesaid person mentioned and de-
,cfibed in the summons as one Of the
defendants 10 the action.
The record alao discloses that one
Thomas Jackson made service OF q
summons upon the defendant COM
oany by delivering a copy of the
anne to the president OF such defend
mt company, Charles H. Scofeld.
Ind makes oath that he knew the
person served as aforesaid to be the
president OF said company mentioned
md described in the summons as one
If the defendants to the action.
The laws of the state of New York
.equire that service OF process on 3
oreign corporation should be made
BY delivering a copy Of the summons
% any one of certain officers of it,
md among these is mentioned the
bat only when it had prop
srty in the state, or the cause OF action
arose therein.
In order, therefore. for the courts
II New York TO obtain Jurisdiction in
IN action against q foreign corpora
ion, two things are necessary!
1st.-That the service must be
made upon one of the officers desig-
1ated.
2d.--The defendant must either
have property in the state, or the
cause of action must have arisen
therein.
The decisions of the courts OF the
state Of New York establish, think,
that if an action is brought in that
state upon a cause OF action which
arose in that state. and the service
had been made on one of the officers
designated in the statute, that the
court would obtain jurisdiction OF the
defendant. and that Judgment rem
1ered 10 such proceeding would be a
valid judgment so far as such judg-
ment might effect any of the property
of the foreign corporation found
within the stale of New York.
II the service Of process in the case
prese nted by the record IVES made
upon the president Of the defendant
COMPANY, and the cause of action
arose within the state OF New York
then under the decisions by the courts
of that state, the supreme court,
wherein the proceedings were. bad OBJ
tanned jurisdiction of the case, anC
the Judgment rendered therein would
be valid judgment eniorcible by e3
ecution or other legal mesna sgsins
any property the defendant company
might have 10 the state Of New York
1t appears from the record that thI
note upon which the action wa
brought was msde in the state o
New York, but it nowhere appear
where it was made payable. As be
tween the maker and payee OF I
premisory mole, if no particula
place OF payment is designated. it
place Of payment will be presumed t,
be at the place of iis making. A.
between these two parties nc demand
is necessary on the part of the psyee
1t is the duty OF the maker to pay the
note at maturity, and il he Wsnts l.
avoid suit Tor non=psyment, be mus
seek the psyee at its maturity. Ii
the case, therefore. there being n
definite place of payment designated
IL will be presumed that its place O