About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Edward Herndon, Appellant, v. James C. Ridgway, Eri Ridgway, William H. Gasque, and Henry Davis U.S. 424 (1855)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0211 and id is 1 raw text is: 424 SUPREM E COURT. Herndon v. Ridgway et al. EDWARD HERNDON, APPELLANT, v. JAMES C. RIDGWAY, Eni RIDGWAY, WILLIAm H. GASQUE, AND HENRY DAVIS. Where a bill was filed in the district court of- the United States for the northern district of 'Mississippi, against four defendants, who all resided in Alabama, two of whom aipeared for the purpose of moving to dismiss the bill, and the other two declined to appear altogether, nor was process served upon them, the court had no alternative but to dismiss the bill. The two absentees were essential parties. Jurisdictioni over parties is acquired only by a service of process, or their voluntary appearance. If an essential portion of the defendants resided in another State, so that process could not be served upon them, and they would not voluntarily appear, the bill must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. THIS was an appeal from the district court of the United States, for the northern district of Mississippi. It was a bill filed by Herndon, under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court, and which was dismissed by the court below. Tire process against Davis was served upon Messrs. Dowd and Murphy, his attorneys. A motion was made to dismiss the bill foi three reasons, the second of which was:- Because Henry Davis is not a citizen of.the northern distrie of T lississippi, and Dowd and Murphy are not his attorneys of redord in any of the courts of the United States, and have not instituted proceedings or suit therein against said Herndon, but are attorneys of record of said Davis, in the circuit court of MNonroe county, Mississippi, a state court, as per affidavit on file. The affidavit was as follows: - In ppen court personally appeared Win. F. Dowd, one of the firm of Dowd and MHurphy, who made oath that Dowd and Murphy are not the attorneys of record of Henry Davis, and have not been, as such, to institute any suit in this court, or any one of the federal courts of the United States, against Edward Herndon, for the recovery of the property mentioned in the bill filed in this cause; but they, said Dowd and Murphy, are the attorneys of record of Henry Davis to prosecute a suit against said Herndon, in a State court, to wit: the circuit court of Monroe county, in the State of Mississippi. W. F. DOWD. The district court dismissed the bill, and Herndon appealed to this court. The case was argued by Mr. Adams, for the appellant, who contended that service upon the attorneys was sufficienti and by ilr. Phillips, for the appellees, who contended that it was not, and referred to 3 Bro. C. C. 521; 2 Cox. 389.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most