Ex Parte Railway Company
Cases that cite this one
42 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Smith v. Reed (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1912)
- American Fidelity Fire Insurance Company v. United States District Court For The Northern District Of California (9th Cir. 1976)
- American Fidelity Fire Insurance v. United States District Court (9th Cir. 1976)
- Jaftex Corp. v. Randolph Mills, Inc. (2d Cir. 1960)
- Hearst v. Hearst (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1954)
- Davis v. Ensign-Bickford Co. (8th Cir. 1944)
- In re Melekov (9th Cir. 1940)
- Rorick v. Devon Syndicate, Ltd. (6th Cir. 1939)
- Connecticut Fire Ins. v. Lake Transfer Corp. (2d Cir. 1934)
- Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Rellstab (3d Cir. 1926)
- Lefebvre-Armistead Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. (Va. 1925)
- Arkansas Anthracite Coal & Land Co. v. Stokes (8th Cir. 1924)
- Bucyrus Co. v. McArthur (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1914)
- Big Vein Coal Co. of W. Va. v. Read (Supreme Court of the United States 1913)
- United States v. Brooke (District Court, S.D. New York 1910)
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. District Court of Fourth Judicial District (N.D. 1904)
- Central Trust Co. of New York v. Chattanooga, R. & C. R. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee 1895)
- People ex rel. Sayer v. Garnett (Ill. 1889)
- Noyes v. Canada (United States Circuit Courts 1887)
- Fong, Auditor v. Sapienza, Judge (Haw. 1951)
- Hisel v. Chrysler Corporation (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1950)
- Rorick v. Devon Syndicate, Ltd. (Supreme Court of the United States 1939)
- Allen v. Clark (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1938)
- State Ex Rel. St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co. v. Taylor (Supreme Court of the United States 1924)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
This motion is denied, 1, because it is an attempt to use the writ of mandamus as a writ of error to bring here for review the judgment of the Circuit Court upon a plea to the jurisdiction filed yin the suit; and, 2, because if a writ of mandamus could be used for ’ such a purpose the judgment below was clearly right. Under sect. 739 of the Revised Statutes, no civil suit, not local in its nature, can be brought in the Circuit Court of the United States, against an inhabitant of the United States, by original process, in any other State than that of which he is an inhabitant, or in which he is found at the time of serving the writ. It is conceded that the person against whom this suit was brought in the Circuit Court was an inhabitant of the State of Massachusetts, and was not found in or served with process in Iowa. Clearly, then, he was not suable in the Circuit Court of the District of Iowa, and unless he could be sued no attachment could issue from' that court against his property. An attachment is but an incident to a suit, and unless the suit can be maintained the attachment must fall. The act of June 4, 1880, c. 120, “providing the times and places of holding the Circuit Court of the United States in the District of Iowa and for other purposes ” (21 Stat. 155), divides that district into four divisions, and requires suits against an inhabitant of the district to be brought in the division in which he resides. The provision of the second section, that, “ where the defendant is not a resident of the dis-. trict, suit may be brought in any division where property or the defendant is found,” applies only to suits which may be *797 properly brought in the district against a non-resident. Such a suit, if not local, must be in the division where the defendant is found when served with process; if local, in the division where the property, which is the subject-matter of the action, is situated. There is not manifested anywhere in this act an intention of repealing sect. 739, so far as it affects the Iowa district.
Motion denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.