Court Opinion

ID: 8851456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:14:57.50001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:30.735163
License: Public Domain

LAGOMBE, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts). There is a distinction to be made between this case and those heretofore decided in this circuit, and cited on the argument, namely: Good Hope Co. v. Railway B. F. Co., 22 Fed. 635; Golden v. News, 42 Fed. 112; Bentlif v. Finance Corp., 44 Fed. 667; and Clews v. Iron Co., Id. 31. In those cases the service of process in the state court had given that court no jurisdiction, either of the person or of the property of defendant; and under the doctrine laid down in St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 1 Sup. Ct. 354, and Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, the federal courts would have treated any judgment rendered in the state court upon such service as a nullity.. In the case at bar, however, the state court had, even under the theory of the United States supreme court decisions above cited, acquired jurisdiction of the property attached within the state.
When a precisely similar point was presented in McKay v. Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Georgia [no opinion], this court, the writer then sitting, followed the opinion of Judge Colt in Perkins v. Hendryx, 40 Fed. 657, and dismissed the summons and attachment. But attention was not at that time called to Railroad Co. v. Estill, 147 U. S. 591, 13 Sup. Ct. 444. Although much of that opinion is obiter, it affords a- strong indication of the views of the supreme court upon the questions raised here. In conformity thereto, it should be held that where the state court has, by levy made under attachment and personal service effected before removal, properly acquired jurisdiction of the case, to the extent, at least, of being entitled to enforce *151its judgment against such property, the federal circuit court will not, where the nonresident defendant has voluntarily removed the cause, allow him to dismiss it as to that property, on the sole ground thai this court could not have acquired original jurisdiction of such property by the issue of an attachment. The motion is denied.