Miller v. Alaska-Canadian Oil & Coal Co.
District Court, D. Alaska
The defendant has specially appeared in this case and moves to vacate the order for the publication of summons and to quash the summons published thereunder.
Read the full summary
The defendant has specially appeared in this case and moves to vacate the order for the publication of summons and to quash the summons published thereunder. By the complaint, the attachment affidavit, the marshal’s return upon the summons, and affidavit for the publication of summons, it appears that the defendant is a foreign corporation, ow-ning property and doing business in this judicial division of the territory of Alaska, and that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff upon express contracts; that the defendant has no agent herein upon whom service can be had; that the marshal has…
1Opinion of the Court
CUSHMAN, District Judge.'
Defendant’s motion to vacate and quash is made upon the ground that, at the time of making the order of publication, the court had not acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or any property by lawful attachment; defendant’s contention being that, as under the controlling rule laid down in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565, it is not enough to confer jurisdiction, in a suit in personam, to set out that the defendant owns property in the jurisdiction, but that the property must be further subjected to the jurisdiction of the court by…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Tibbet v. SueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Anvil Gold Mining Co. v. HoxsieCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1903
- Bank of Winnemucca v. MullaneyOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Schultz v. LevyOregon Supreme Court · 1898
3Cited by1 opinion
- Honolulu Iron Works Co. v. HaraHawaii Supreme Court · 1922