Legal Opinion

Smith v. Belmore

District Court, E.D. Washington

Decided April 11, 1941No. 35PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCHWELLENBACH, District Judge.

This motion is based upon six grounds, the first five of which involve the question of jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the service of process. Clearly the attempted service in this case did not comply with the statutory requirements. Defendant Belmore is non-resident. Jurisdiction over him is attempted to be secured under Section 6360 — -129, Remington’s Code. This is the Section of the Code by which service upon non-residents is made possible in cases involving actions arising out of accidents, collisions and liability in which such non-resident may be…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Teater v. KingWashington Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Matson v. Kennecott Mines Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Matson v. Kennecott Mines Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Bain v. ThomsWashington Supreme Court · 1906
  5. State Ex Rel. Hamlin v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. James W. Heeney v. Marjorie E. MinerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970
  2. Bucholz v. HuttonDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1957
  3. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. v. KlineDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1941
  4. Thorne, Neale & Co. v. CoeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API