Search Supreme Court Cases

DAVIS V. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST.L. RY. CO., 217 U. S. 157 (1910)

U.S. Supreme Court

Davis v. Cleveland, C., C. & St.L. Ry. Co., 217 U.S. 157 (1910)

Davis v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company

No. 123

Argued March 3, 4, 1910

Decided April 4, 1910

217 U.S. 157


Even though the certificate is not in proper form, this Court can review the judgment of the Circuit Court under § 5 of the Act of 1891 if the record shows clearly that the only matter tried and decided in that court was one of jurisdiction.

The fact that a writ of error was sued out from the circuit court of appeals to the circuit court and dismissed is not a bar to the jurisdiction of this Court to review the judgment of the circuit court on the question of its jurisdiction as a federal court.

A court cannot without personal service acquire jurisdiction over the person, and it is open to one not served, but whose property is attached, to appear specially to contest the control of the court over such property, and in this case, the appearance of the defendant for that purpose was special and not general.

Page 217 U. S. 158

Neither the enactment of § 5258, Rev.Stat., nor of the Interstate Commerce Law by Congress abrogated the attachment law of the states. Although different views have been taken in several states as to the immunity from seizure and garnishment under attachment of cars engaged in interstate commerce and credits due for interstate transportation, this Court holds that it was within the jurisdiction of the state court to seize and hold the cars and credits seized and garnisheed in this case, notwithstanding their connection with interstate commerce.

The facts, which involve the liability to attachment of cars used in interstate commerce, are stated in the opinion.

Page 217 U. S. 165

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: DAVIS V. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST.L. RY. CO., 217 U. S. 157 (1910)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.