Case Name: BUTLER v. UNGERLEIDER
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1951-02-16
Citations: 187 F.2d 238
Docket Number: No. 156, Docket 21883
Parties: BUTLER v. UNGERLEIDER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 187
Pages: 238–240

Head Matter:
BUTLER v. UNGERLEIDER.
No. 156, Docket 21883.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Jan. 9, 1951.
Decided Feb. 16, 1951.
Plaintiff Butler’s complaint alleges the following: On January 23, 1933, one Schumacher, as receiver of a national bank, recovered a judgment against Butler in the court below on an alleged obligation of Butler for an assessment against him as alleged shareholder of the bank. Butler was not personally served in that action nor has he ever appeared therein; and the service was not by a United States Marshal. In 1938, the successor receiver of the bank assigned the judgment to defendant Unger-leider. Before that assignment, all creditors and depositors of the bank, and all receivership expenses had been paid in full, leaving a surplus in the receiver’s hands, “available for partial and proportionate rebate to stockholders who had paid or partially paid assessments.” Defendant is a citizen of and resides in Florida. The complaint asked a declaratory judgment that defendant has no claim against Butler ; that in the action against him the court had no jurisdiction; and that it be vacated.
Pursuant to a motion by Butler, based on an affidavit that defendant resided in Florida, the district court made an order that service of summons be made on defendant out of the jurisdiction where he might be found. The United States Marshal filed a return showing that 'he had served a copy of the summons, complaint, order and affidavit on defendant in Florida. Thereafter, on defendant’s motion, the district court made an order setting aside the service and quashing the return.
William A. Butler, Brooklyn, N.’ Y. (Vine H. Smith, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Morton Frederick, New York City, for defendant-appellee.
Before CHASE, CLARK, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. On the facts here, the order quashing service was appealable.
2. The suit is ancillary to the original action in which defendant's assignor obtained the judgment against plaintiff in the court below. Accordingly, as defendant is a privy to the party who obtained that judgment, the court had jurisdiction of this suit, and service within the district was unnecessary. All that was required was an order, for adequate notice to defendant, based upon an appropriate showing. As plaintiff met those requirements, the order quashing service was erroneous.
Reversed.
. Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372.
. O'Connor v. O'Connor, C.C.W.D.Tex., 146 F. 994, 997; Hanna v. Brictson Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 62 F.2d 139, 149; cf. Pacific R. Co. v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., C.C.E.D.Mo., 3 F. 772; Pacific R. Co. v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 111 U.S. 505, 522, 4 S.Ct. 583, 28 L.Ed. 498; Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. 609, 633-634, 17 L.Ed. 886; Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Co., 284 U.S. 448, 454-455, 52 S.Ct. 238, 76 L.Ed. 389; Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1, 2-3, 8 L.Ed. 845; Higgins v. California Prune & Apricot Growers, 2 Cir., 282 F. 550, 554-555; 2 Moore's Federal Practice (2d ed.) 933-934; Moore and Rogers, Federal Relief from Civil Judgments, 55 Yale L.J. 623, 655— 656. In Merriam v. Saalfield, 241 U.S. 22, 36 S.Ct. 477, 60 L.Ed. 868, it was held that one who had financed the defense of a law-suit, bound by the judgment therein for purposes of res judicata, wus not a "privy" in the sense here involved.