Rock River Bank v. Hoffman
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an order refusing to dismiss the complaint and vacate an attachment which had been granted in the cause. This action, and another one which was brought by George P. Haylor and others at the same time, were brought against Francis A. Hoffman, Otto Gelpcke, and Alexander Seller, who were partners in business in Chicago, Illinois. The causes .of action were partnership debts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order refusing to dismiss the complaint and vacate an attachment which had been granted in the cause. This action, and another one which was brought by George P. Haylor and others at the same time, were brought against Francis A. Hoffman, Otto Gelpcke, and Alexander Seller, who were partners in business in Chicago, Illinois. The causes .of action were partnership debts. The plaintiffs obtained attachments to be issued on the ground of the non-residence of the defendants. At special term, in December, 1861, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and vacate the attachment,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Leonard, J.
When the attachment was granted, the defendant Hoffman was consul for the Duchy of Saxe Coburg Gotha, for the State of Illinois.
It issued against the property of all the defendants. The Constitution and laws of the Hnited States prohibit the State courts from taking cognizance of suits affecting consuls.
It is thus apparent that this court were without jurisdiction to grant process of any kind against Hoffman when the attachment herein was issued;
The question of jurisdiction must be disposed of according to the facts existing when the action was commenced or the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Valarino v. . ThompsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
3Cited by2 opinions
- Graham v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1905
- Urdaneta v. UrdanetaNew York Family Court · 1942