Benton v. McIntosh

U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois

Benton v. McIntosh

96 F. 132, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3219

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois

DecidedMay 21, 1899

DocketNo. 25,162

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 F. 132 (Benton v. McIntosh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benton v. McIntosh, 96 F. 132, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3219 (circtndil 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

KOHLSAAT, District Judge.

In this matter defendant has filed a plea to the jurisdiction, averring facts tending to show that he was fraudulently induced to come within this jurisdiction for the purpose of service of process. Complainant moves to strike the plea from the files on the ground that in the federal courts the defendant is not entitled to file a plea under such circumstances, but should proceed by motion to quash the return, and the decision should be by the court on hearing of affidavits, instead of trial by jury, as necessitated by issue on the plea. The case of Wall v. Railway Co. (decided by the circuit court of appeals of this circuit at the October term, 1898) 95 Fed. 398, is cited in support of this contention. That decision does hold that the federal court may ignore state practice in such a matter, and that a motion to quash the service, and not a plea in abatement, has been the usual practice in the federal courts to reach such a defense. The decision does not hold that it would have been error to follow the state practice, however, and the question of convenience and dispatch seems to be the basis of the different decisions cited. On this latter ground I will enter an order that the plea already filed stand as a motion to quash the service, that the same may be supported by additional affidavits filed within five days, and that complainant have five days thereafter within which to file counter affidavits.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KOHLSAAT, District Judge.

In this matter defendant has filed a plea to the jurisdiction, averring facts tending to show that he was fraudulently induced to come within this jurisdiction for the purpose of service of process. Complainant moves to strike the plea from the files on the ground that in the federal courts the defendant is not entitled to file a plea under such circumstances, but should proceed by motion to quash the return, and the decision should be by the court on hearing of affidavits, instead of trial by jury, as necessitated by issue on the plea. The case of Wall v. Railway Co. (decided by the circuit court of appeals of this circuit at the October term, 1898) 95 Fed. 398, is cited in support of this contention. That decision does hold that the federal court may ignore state practice in such a matter, and that a motion to quash the service, and not a plea in abatement, has been the usual practice in the federal courts to reach such a defense. The decision does not hold that it would have been error to follow the state practice, however, and the question of convenience and dispatch seems to be the basis of the different decisions cited. On this latter ground I will enter an order that the plea already filed stand as a motion to quash the service, that the same may be supported by additional affidavits filed within five days, and that complainant have five days thereafter within which to file counter affidavits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. 132, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-v-mcintosh-circtndil-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack