United States ex rel. Miller v. Mitchell
District Court, E.D. New York
' At Raw. Action by the United States, to the use of Frank Miller and others, creditors of Edmund H. Mitchell ánd another, doing business as Mitchell & Co., against Edmund H. Mitchell and Henry T. Mitchell, doing business as Mitchell & Co., and another.’ On motion to vacate decree.
1Opinion of the CourtVeeder, District Judge
(after deciding other issues). The validity of the service of the summons is challenged, the contention being that in the United Slates court service can legally be made by the marshal alone. This is undoubtedly true in equity causes by virtue of equity rule 15 (198 Fed. xxiii, 115 C. C. A. xxiii). But the summons in issue was served in an action at law, with respect to which Rev. St. § 914 (Comp. St. 1913, § 1537), provides:
“Tbe practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding in civil causes, other than equity and admiralty causes, in the Circuit and District Courts, shall conform, as…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Amy v. WatertownSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Peaslee v. HaberstroU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1879
- Dwight v. MerrittU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1880
- Perkins v. WatertownU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Wisconsin · 1873
- Martin v. CriscuolaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1872
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Chisholm v. GilmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Concrete Steel Bridge Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
- Rakauskas v. Erie R.District Court, E.D. New York · 1916
- United States v. PaulyDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1989
- Kuzma v. Witherbee, Sherman & Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1915