Gray v. National Steamship Co.
Opinion of the Court
The substance of the plea is, that it appears by the bill that tbe plaintiff recovered a judgment against the National Steam Navigation Company, that such judgment is unpaid, that William Rome and Charles E. Dixon are the liquidators of said company, that property of said company has been transferred in fraud of the plaintiff and of said company’s creditors, and that the plaintiff seeks to have a receiver appointed of such property as property of said company. The plea avers that the said National Steam Navigation Company and the said Rome and Dixon ought to be, but are not, made parties to the bill. The bill avers that on the 16th of August, 1867, the National Steam Navigation Company, a corporation then existing under a statute of Great Britain known as the “Companies Act of 1862,” William Rome and Charles Edward Dixon and the defendant then entered into-an agreement-of which a copy is annexed to-the bill, the defendant being a corporation existing under the same statute; that the plaintiff on the 23d of June, 1868, recovered judgment in a court of this state against the Steam Navigation Company for $3,269.05,
It is provided by section 737 of the Revised Statutes that the non-joinder of parties who are not inhabitants of, nor found within the district in which the suit is brought, and do not voluntarily appear, shall not constitute matter of abatement or objection to the suit. The plea in this case does not aver that the National Steam Navigation Company, or Rome or Dixon, is an inhabitant of or can be found in this district. It does not allege that they are willing or desire voluntarily to appear. It does not allege that the company is still in existence, or that Rome or Dixon is still living. The bill shows that Rome and Dixon, when living, resided in Liverpool, in England, and that the company was a British corporation. No allegation is made in the plea that this court can acquire jurisdiction of them or of the company, by the service of any process. The bill does not state a ease within section 73S of the Revised Statutes. The suit is not made by the bill one to enforce a lien or claim against property in this district. Under section 737 this court could proceed to adjudicate the suit between the parties before it, even though the parties alleged by the plea to be necessary parties have been named as parties by the plaintiff but were not brought into court. The plea is overruled with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.