Herbert v. Bicknell
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP HAWAII. The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment rendered by the courts of Hawaii and based on service of process under § 2114, Rev, Law of Hawaii, are stated in the opinion;
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is an action of assumpsit begun on June 30, 1909, in the District Court of Honolulu, by garnishment and leaving a copy of the summons at a place which according to the return was the defendant’s last and usual place of abode, he being absent from the Territory. The defendant did not appear and the plaintiff got judgment against the fund on July 2, 1909. No appeal or writ of error was taken, but on December 31, 1909, the time for suing out a writ of error not having expired, the defendant appeared specially and moved to quash the service and set aside the judgment on the ground that the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Cooper v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Phoenix Railway Co. v. LandisSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Montoya v. GonzalezSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Mankin v. ChandlerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Virginia · 1823
3Cited by16 opinions
- Propper v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Cantor v. SachsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1932
- Spoturno v. WoodsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1937
- Closson v. ClossonWyoming Supreme Court · 1923
- Mouzon v. MouzonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.