Wirtz v. Henry
Wirtz v. Henry
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The only question presented by this record is, whether process can be sent to a foreign county, against a sole defendant, in an action on the case for deceit. Under the act of 1861, process can be sent, against a sole defendant, into a county other than that in which the suit is brought, only in cases where the action is upon a contract that has been, made in the county in which the action is brought, and the plaintiff is a resident of such county. . The language of the act, by necessary implication, precludes the sending of process to a foreign county, against a sole defendant, in any action not brought upon a contract. The action in this case is not brought upon a contract. It grows out of a contract, it is true, but the action is brought to recover damages for the alleged fraud and deceit practised in making the contract, and not for a violation of any of its terms, or to assert a right based upon the contract.
The demurrer to the replication should have been sustained.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Jacob C. Wirtz v. Louis M. Henry
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Process—to foreign county, against asolé defendant. The language of the act of 1861, authorizing process to b6 sent against a sole defendant into a county other than that in which the suit is brought, when the action is upon, a contract that has been made in. the county in which the action is brought, and the plaintiff is a resident of such county, precludes, by necessary implication, the sending of process to a foreign county against a sole defendant in any action not brought upon a contract. 2. So, to an action on the case brought to recover damages for alleged fraud and deceit practiced by the defendant in making a contract, and not for a violation of any of its terms, or to assert a right based upon the contract, it was held, the act did not apply.