Ashley v. Quintard
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio
On Motion to Vacate Service. Appearing only to make this motion, certain of the defendants ask to vacate a service by publication of an attachment writ, and to discharge the attachment. The suit was brought in the state court, and removed here by one of the defendants.
Read the full summary
On Motion to Vacate Service. Appearing only to make this motion, certain of the defendants ask to vacate a service by publication of an attachment writ, and to discharge the attachment. The suit was brought in the state court, and removed here by one of the defendants. That defendant, the Ann Arbor liailroad Company, has answered, but there has been no service of the summons upon Qointard and others of the defendants, and only by the attachment and publication involved in this motion have they been brought in, if at all. There seem to have been two writs, one from the state court before…
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.
(after stating the facts). Technically, perhaps,this motion should he decided solely upon the answer of the garnishee, which is not at all full in its statement of the facts, though it sufficiently appears by that document that the defendants are citizens of New York and nonresidents in Ohio, while the railroad company is only a Michigan corporation. But even that is not stated in the answer of the garnishee, but rather stands upon the agreement of counsel in argument that it is not incorporated in Ohio as it might be in both states. We find the fact to be that it is solely a Michigan…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Barrow Steamship Co. v. KaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Miller v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. GonzalesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- In Re Keasbey & Mattison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Vidal v. South American Securities Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Hook v. HoffmanArizona Supreme Court · 1915
- United States Express Co. v. HurlockCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
- McKane v. BurkeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1904
- Standard Fuel & Material Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933