Case Name: Samuel A. Badger versus George W. Towle
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1860
Citations: 48 Me. 20
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel A. Badger versus George W. Towle.
Judges: Tenney, C. J., and Appleton, Davis, and Kent, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 20–25

Head Matter:
Samuel A. Badger versus George W. Towle.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine has general common law jurisdiction in all cases. unless its powers are restricted by the constitution or by statute.
Cases enumerated, in which it has jurisdiction, if either or both of the parties reside without the State, and there has been personal service upon the defendant, or his property has been attached.
Want of jurisdiction, for cause not apparent on the face of the record, can be taken advantage of only by plea in abatement. A motion to dismiss can only be sustained, where the defect is disclosed upon inspection of the writ.
Where the plaintiff described himself, in his writ, (issued A. D., 1856,) as “late of Kittery in the county of York,” the defendant, as of P., in the State of New Hampshire, and an officer of the county of York, certified personal service upon the defendant; a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction will not be sustained. Goodenow, J., dissenting.
On the second day of the term, at which this action was entered, (September term, 1856,) the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the same. At a subsequent term, at Nisi Prius, (April term, 1859,) a hearing was had before Goodenow., J., who sustained the motion and ordered the case to be dismissed. The plaintiff excepted.' The material part of the motion is recited in the opinion of the Court.
The questions raised by the exceptions were argued by
J. N. Goodwin, for the plaintiff, and by
Howard and Strout, and Allen, for the defendant.
The plaintiff describes himself in his writ, as “ late of Kittery in the county of York, trader;” and the defendant, as “of Portsmouth in the county of Rockingham and State of New Hampshire.”
The service of the writ was by a deputy sheriff of the county of York, by an attachment of “a hat” and giving the defendant “ a summons,” &c.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Rice, J.
The Supreme Judicial Court of this State has general common law jurisdiction in all cases unless its powers are restricted by the constitution or by statute. R. S., 1841, c. 114, § 7.
In England and America suits in personal actions are maintainable, and maintained between foreigners, when either of them is within the territory of the State in which the suit is brought. Story's Confl. of Laws, § 542.
This Court has jurisdiction in personal actions between parties not resident in the State, if the defendant is found and duly summoned when temporarily within the State. Barrell v. Benjamin, 15 Mass., 354; Nelson v. Omaley, 6 Maine, 218; Lovejoy v. Albee, 33 Maine, 414.
Where there has been an attachment of the property of a non-resident of the State, but no personal service upon the defendant, a judgment will bind the property but not the person. McVicker v. Beedy, 31 Maine, 314.
In the case at bar, the officer returns an attachment of the defendant's property and a service upon his person, within his precinct.
Sect. 2 of c. 114, R. S., 1841, refers to cases where both parties reside within the State. Sect. 27, of same chapter, is directory, and has reference to cases where goods and estate are attached and where the defendant is resident out of the State and not personally summoned when in the State. Nelson v. Omaley, 6 Maine, 218.
The writ in this case, on its face, discloses no want of jurisdiction. It does not appear, therefore, that the plaintiff was not an inhabitant of, and resident within the State at the time the action was commenced.
The motion sets out the following facts: — "And the defendant says, that at the time of the issuing and service of said writ, he was an inhabitant and resident of Portsmouth, in the State of New Hampshire, and had no property in this State, and that the said plaintiff is now, and, at the time of the issuing and service of said writ was, and for the last three years has been a resident of Detroit, in the State of Michigan."
Most of the facts therein set forth are issuable, and could be made available to the defendant, if at all, by plea and proof only, and not on motion, which is only available when the defect is apparent upon the record. Chamberlain v. Lane, 36 Maine, 388. Exceptions sustained.
Tenney, C. J., and Appleton, Davis, and Kent, JJ., concurred.