United States v. Brooke
District Court, S.D. New York
Action by the United States of America against Fred A. Brooke and another, doing business as Joseph Brooke & Co. On motion to vacate an attachment.
1Opinion of the Court
HAZED, District Judge.
The attachment granted herein must be vacated on the ground that jurisdiction has not been obtained over the person of the defendants. According to the moving papers, the defendants are residents of Huddersfield, England, and are not residents of the state of New York, and cannot after due diligence be found therein or within the United States. The return of the marshal certifies that he is unable to find the defendants or either of them within the Southern district of New York.
The authorities uniformly hold that to merely find property of- a defendant in the district…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Toland v. SpragueSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Ex Parte Railway CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Erstein v. RothschildU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1884
- Laborde v. UbarriSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Harland v. United Lines Tel. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1889
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Davis v. Ensign-Bickford Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1944
- Allen v. ClarkDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1938
- In re StarkDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1929
- Frontier S. S. Co. v. Franklin S. S. Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1916
- Hearst v. HearstDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.