St. Paul daily globe., 1896-03-15
LOOP HOLE CLOSED
JUDGE EGAN PINS THE ADAMS EN-
PRESS COMPANY DOWN TO
TRIAL.
NO DEFECT IN THE SERVICE
OF THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS ON
THE GENERAL AGENT,
OWENS.
NO DEFECT IN THE SERVICE
STATE WINS THE FIRST BOUT.
Case VIII Now Go Before the Court
on the Merits of the Con-
tPOVersy.

Judge Egan yesterday filed an order
In the somewhat noted case of the state
against the Adams Express company,
in which he denies the motion of the
express company in an attempt to creep
out of the suit on a technicality in the
service of papers. Accompanying the
order, the court filed the following
memorandum:
The legislature of this state by Gen.
Laws 1895, chap. 152, provided, that
''eVery person, firm, corporation or as
sociatiOn which shall do the business
of an express company upon railroads
in this state by the carrying of any kind
of property for compensation, is hereby
declared to be a common carrier and
subject to all the laws of the. state of
Minnesota regulating common carri-
erS," and empowered the railroad and
warehouse commission to assume the
same powers, duties and responsible
ties with reference to express compa-
MES in this state that they now eXer-
else under the law with reference to
other common carriers by railroad, with
the same authority and jurisdiction and
the same methods of procedure as are
by law provided for in the case of
such common carriers"
Assuming to act in pursuance of such
authority, the commission sued out an
alternative writ of mandamus against
the respondent, which was ordered by
the court to be served upon J. W.
Owens, the general agent of respond
ent, who was then conducting it's buSi-
ness in this state.
The respondent appeared specially by
its counsel and upon affidavits filed
which were not controverted, showing
that the respondent is a joint stock as
oil IF
residents of this state, moved to quash
the writ on the ground that the court
acquired no jurisdiction over the re-
spondent by such service upon it's said
general agent.
The question presented is one of pub
lie Importance, in view of the fact that
the greater part Of the eX-
try, and especially of this state
is carried on by such association. If
the contention of respondents counsel
is sound, it must follow that the said
legislation of 1895 will prove ineffective
in every attempt at the regula tion Of
such business when carried on in this
state, by nonresident individuals and
associations.
An examination of all the legislation
of the state bearing upon the question
convinceS me that the service was Suff1-
cient to give the court jurisdiction. 1t
is competent for the legislature to pre-
scribe how jurisdiction in such a case
shall be acquired. Express authority
for service is found in Gen Laws 1891,
chap 106, sec. 4, amending sec. % of the
commission act of 1887, wherein, among
other things, it is provided that "the
court shall have power to acquire and
determine the matter on such short
notice to the common carrier complain
ed of as the court shall deem reason
able; and such notice may be served
on such carrier, his or it's agents, or
servants, in such manner as the court
shall direct" Furthermore, the man.
ner of service of the writ is left to the