Klopenstein v. Woolf
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from the third district court. The opinion states the facts. This was an action in rem, and the court certainly had jurisdiction of the property of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the third district court. The opinion states the facts. This was an action in rem, and the court certainly had jurisdiction of the property of the defendant. This is in accordance with the opinion of the court in the case of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714. See also Empire City Bank, 18 N. Y. 199; Happy v. Mosher, 48 Id. 213; Westenseek v. Qrigg, 12 Id. 102; Campbell v. Evans, 45 Id. 356. Section 1772 of the laws of Utah of 1876 governs in this case, and is directly opposed to the judgment of dismissal entered in the third district court on appeal; and under this section, if for no…
1Opinion of the Court
EMERSON, J.:
This action was originally commenced in the justice’s court for Bingham precinct in Salt Lake county, to recover on certain due-bills dated at, and for work performed in, that precinct, but no place of payment was named.
The record shows that the defendant is a resident of Salt Lake City, and that there is, and was at the time this suit was commenced, a justice’s court and a justice competent to act in the precinct where the defendant resides.
*428The defendant made a special appearance in tbe justice’s court, and moved to dismiss the ease for the reason, among others, that the justice…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kansas City Hardware Co. v. NeilsonUtah Supreme Court · 1894