Source: https://openjurist.org/299/us/374
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:38:40+00:00

Document:
This case involves an effort to obtain by mandamus and prohibition a re-examination and vacation of an order of a federal District Court remanding to a state court a suit theretofore removed into the former from the latter.
A citizen of Texas sued a corporate citizen of Missouri in a state court of Gregg county, Tex., to recover a sum in excess of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, upon a policy of workmen's compensation insurance, and caused process to be issued out of that court and served upon an alleged agent of the defendant. Without otherwise appearing in the state court, the defendant in due time and mode caused the suit to be removed, by reason of the diverse citizenship of the parties, into the federal court for the Eastern District of Texas, which includes Gregg county.
After the removal the defendant, appearing specially, showed that the alleged agent upon whom process had been served prior to the removal was not in fact its agent, and the federal court set aside the service. At the plaintiff's instance further process was issued out of that court and served upon an agent of the defendant within the Western—not Eastern—District of Texas. Again appearing specially, the defendant challenged this service because made outside the court's territorial jurisdiction, and the service was set aside.
Obtaining the removal from the state court into the federal court did not operate as a general appearance by the defendant1 and, as the service of process against it proved invalid and it declined to appear voluntarily, the federal court plainly was without personal jurisdiction of the defendant, although in other respects having jurisdiction of the suit.
The suit was in personam and not within any exceptional provision empowering the federal court to send its process outside its district. Therefore that court's process could be effectively served only within the district.2 But the state court was not subject to such a limitation and could send its process to any part of the state.
In these circumstances the plaintiff moved that the suit be remanded to the state court because the federal court was without, and unable to obtain, personal jurisdiction of the defendant; and in support of the motion the plaintiff asserted that the defendant had not been effectively served with process, had not voluntarily appeared, and had no agent within the district upon whom process could be served. Coming to act upon this motion, the federal court construed section 80, title 28, U.S.Code (28 U.S.C.A. § 80), as authorizing it either to dismiss the suit or to remand the same to the state court, as justice might require; concluded that justice required a remanding order because 'an order of dismissal would prevent plaintiff from refiling (beginning anew) his suit within the time permitted by the statute of Texas and would amount to a complete denial of his right to litigate the claim'; and accordingly entered an order remanding the suit to the state court.
The defendant, conceiving that the remanding order was wrongly made, petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals for writs of mandamus and prohibition commanding the judge of the District Court to vacate that order and prohibiting him from giving any effect to it. The Circuit Court of Appeals entertained the petition, ordered the judge to show cause why the requested writs should not issue, received and considered his return disclosing the proceedings and matters already recited, and denied the petition. In re Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 82 F.(2d) 373. The case is here on certiorari.
We are of opinion the petition was rightly denied, first, because the remanding order was not subject to appellate re-examination on petition for mandamus or otherwise, and, secondly, because even if open to re-examination on petition for mandamus, the order was made in the exercise of lawful authority and was appropriate to the situation in which it was made.
The provisions in the act of 1887 on which that decision and others to the same effect were based are still in force as parts of sections 71 and 80, title 28, U.S.Code (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 71, 80). They are in pari materia, are to be construed accordingly rather than as distinct enactments, and, when so construed, show, as was held in Morey v. Lockhart, 123 U.S. 56, 58, 8 S.Ct. 65, 31 L.Ed. 68, that they are intended to reach and include all cases removed from a state court into a federal court and remanded by the latter.
It follows that the remanding order of the District Court was not subject to re-examination by the Circuit Court of Appeals on the petition for mandamus.
2. It is conceded, and rightly so, that the District Court was without personal jurisdiction of the defendant, and that in the absence of such jurisdiction the court was without power to proceed to an adjudication. The statute, section 80 supra, requires that a District Court, when satisfied that a suit removed into it from a state court does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy 'properly' within its jurisdiction, shall dismiss the suit or remand it to the state court, as justice may require. In this instance the dispute or controversy was not properly within the jurisdiction of the District Court unless (1) the parties were citizens of different states; (2) the value or amount involved exceeded $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and (3) the defendant was before the court by reason of a general appearance or a valid service of process.10 Each of these elements of jurisdiction was essential, and if any was wanting there was an absence of proper jurisdiction. The defendant was not before the court, and therefore it was without jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. Counsel for the petitioner assume that the presence of the defendant was not an element of the court's jurisdiction as a federal court; but the assumption is a mistaken one. By repeated decisions in this Court it has been adjudged that the presence of the defendant in a suit in personam, such as the one now under discussion, is an essential element of the jurisdiction of a district (formerly circuit) court as a federal court,11 and that in the absence of this element the court is powerless to proceed to an adjudication.
It follows that, even if a remanding order were open to re-examination on a petition for mandamus, the petition was in this instance rightly denied.
Wabash Western Ry. v. Brow, 164 U.S. 271, 17 S.Ct. 126, 41 L.Ed. 431; Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 215 U.S. 437, 30 S.Ct. 125, 54 L.Ed. 272; Cain v. Commercial Publishing Co., 232 U.S. 124, 34 S.Ct. 284, 58 L.Ed. 534; General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore R. Co., 260 U.S. 261, 43 S.Ct. 106, 67 L.Ed. 244.
Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 328-330, 9 L.Ed. 1093; New York L. Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 103 U.S. 435, 439, 440, 26 L.Ed. 580; Munter v. Weil Corset Co., 261 U.S. 276, 279, 43 S.Ct. 347, 348, 67 L.Ed. 652; Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, 268 U.S. 619, 622, 623, 45 S.Ct. 621, 622, 623, 69 L.Ed. 1119.
Chicago & A. Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507, 23 L.Ed. 103.
Chicago & A. Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, supra.
This provision is still in force as part of section 80, title 28, U.S.Code (28 U.S.C.A. § 80).
Dillon, Removal of Causes (3d Ed.) § 82; Conkling's Treatise (5th Ed.) p. 170; Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421, 428, 429, 2 L.Ed. 666.
The Act of March 3, 1887, was corrected in particulars not here material, and as corrected was re-enacted, by the Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433.
This provision is still in force as part of section 71, title 28, U.S.Code (28 U.S.C.A. § 71).
The cases are collected and their effect is stated in Gay v. Ruff, 292 U.S. 25, 28, 29, 54 S.Ct. 608, 610, 78 L.Ed. 1099, 92 A.L.R. 970. It was there also pointed out and definitely held that, under the general statute controlling review on certiorari by the Supreme Court, it is admissible for that court to review a decision of a Circuit Court of Appeals directing a District Court to remand a cause to a state court. 292 U.S. 25, at page 30, 54 S.Ct. 608, 610, 78 L.Ed. 1099, 92 A.L.R. 970. Therefore the general rule as stated above is limited to remanding orders made by the District (formerly Circuit) Courts.
Shepard v. Adams, 168 U.S. 618, 18 S.Ct. 214, 42 L.Ed. 602; Remington v. Central Pacific R. Co., 198 U.S. 95, 25 S.Ct. 577, 49 L.Ed. 959; Board of Trade v. Hammond Elevator Co., 198 U.S. 424, 25 S.Ct. 740, 49 L.Ed. 1111; Kendall v. American Automatic Loom Co., 198 U.S. 477, 25 S.Ct. 768, 49 L.Ed. 1133; Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman, 215 U.S. 437, 30 S.Ct. 125, 54 L.Ed. 272; Merriam Co. v. Saalfield, 241 U.S. 22, 36 S.Ct. 477, 60 L.Ed. 868; Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U.S. 128, 37 S.Ct. 44, 61 L.Ed. 192.
Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 421, 428, 429, 2 L.Ed. 666; Texas Transportation Co. v. Seeligson, 122 U.S. 519, 522, 7 S.Ct. 1261, 30 L.Ed. 1150; Cates v. Allen, 149 U.S. 451, 460, 461, 13 S.Ct. 883, 977, 37 L.Ed. 804; Pond v. Sibley (C.C.) 7 F. 129, 138; Gombert v. Lyon (C.C.) 80 F. 305; Peters v. Equitable Life Assurance Society (C.C.) 149 F. 290, 294.

References: § 80
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 80
 § 82
 v. 
 § 71
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.