Johnson v. Davis

D. Massachusetts

Johnson v. Davis

32 F.2d 391, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1205

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedMay 1, 1929

DocketNo. 3091

StatusPublished

This text of 32 F.2d 391 (Johnson v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Davis, 32 F.2d 391, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1205 (D. Mass. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

MORTON, District Judge.

Davis sued Johnson in an action at law which was removed to this court, where it is pending. Johnson has filed against Davis the present bill for discovery in aid of his defense to that action at law. The subpoena of the bill for discovery was, without any order of court, served upon the attorney of record for Davis in the first action. The present question is whether such service is good.

Substituted service is allowed, without express statutory provision for it, in a variety of proceedings (see Foster’s Federal Practice [6th Ed.] § 165); but the weight of opinion is that it must be authorized by order of court (Pacific R. R. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. [C. C.] 3 F. 772, 774, reversed 111 U. S. 505, 4 S. Ct. 583, 28 L. Ed. 498; Johnson-Brown Co. v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co. [D. C.] 239 F. 590; Foster, supra, p. 951). In Gregory v. Pike, 79 F. 520 (C. C. A. 1st) Judge Putnam said: “A departure from the usual method of service of process, such as appears in this caso, involves the exercise of judicial discretion, and something on record to support the judicial determination authorizing it.” Page 522.

The result is that the motion to quash the service is allowed, but not the motion to dismiss ‘ the hill; and • the petitioner’s motion for substituted service, which, being sworn to, is a sufficient affidavit, may be allowed. No costs to either party.

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

MORTON, District Judge.

Davis sued Johnson in an action at law which was removed to this court, where it is pending. Johnson has filed against Davis the present bill for discovery in aid of his defense to that action at law. The subpoena of the bill for discovery was, without any order of court, served upon the attorney of record for Davis in the first action. The present question is whether such service is good.

Substituted service is allowed, without express statutory provision for it, in a variety of proceedings (see Foster’s Federal Practice [6th Ed.] § 165); but the weight of opinion is that it must be authorized by order of court (Pacific R. R. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. [C. C.] 3 F. 772, 774, reversed 111 U. S. 505, 4 S. Ct. 583, 28 L. Ed. 498; Johnson-Brown Co. v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co. [D. C.] 239 F. 590; Foster, supra, p. 951). In Gregory v. Pike, 79 F. 520 (C. C. A. 1st) Judge Putnam said: “A departure from the usual method of service of process, such as appears in this caso, involves the exercise of judicial discretion, and something on record to support the judicial determination authorizing it.” Page 522.

The result is that the motion to quash the service is allowed, but not the motion to dismiss ‘ the hill; and • the petitioner’s motion for substituted service, which, being sworn to, is a sufficient affidavit, may be allowed. No costs to either party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F.2d 391, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-davis-mad-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack