Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Goodrich

Eighth Circuit

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Goodrich

213 F. 339, 129 C.C.A. 599, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1890

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1914

DocketNo. 4007

StatusPublished

This text of 213 F. 339 (Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Goodrich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Goodrich, 213 F. 339, 129 C.C.A. 599, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1890 (8th Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the railway company from an order of the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas refusing to enjoin Goodrich from enforcing a judgment he obtained against it in a state court of Texas. The company ■contends that the Texas court was without jurisdiction and the judgment was rendered without due process of law because it was not doing business in that state and the person upon whom process was served there was not its agent. It appeared specially in that court and moved to dismiss the action for the reasons now urged. The motion was denied and,- over its protest, it was ruled to answer or suffer default. It answered and the action proceeded to judgment.

[1, 2] A statute of Texas holds a party who specially appears, as the company did, to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. See York v. State, 73 Tex. 651, 11 S. W. 869. Without statute the rule is that one may confine his appearance to an attack upon the service without submission generally. Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476, 25 L. Ed. 237; De Witt v. Monroe, 20 Tex. 289. But it was competent for the state to prescribe new consequences to a special .appearance in its courts if it left the party free to stay out, and that was the case here. A statute to that effect is not a denial of due process of law. York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, 11 Sup. Ct. 9, 34 L. Ed. 604; Kauffman v. Wooters, 138 U. S. 285, 11 Sup. Ct. 298, 34 L. Ed. 962. When the company voluntarily appeared, though specially, it subjected itself to the local practice. Whether the state court should have continued the cause after- the motion to dismiss was ■denied is not a jurisdictional question.

The order denying an injunction is affirmed.

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

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal by the railway company from an order of the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas refusing to enjoin Goodrich from enforcing a judgment he obtained against it in a state court of Texas. The company ■contends that the Texas court was without jurisdiction and the judgment was rendered without due process of law because it was not doing business in that state and the person upon whom process was served there was not its agent. It appeared specially in that court and moved to dismiss the action for the reasons now urged. The motion was denied and,- over its protest, it was ruled to answer or suffer default. It answered and the action proceeded to judgment.

[1, 2] A statute of Texas holds a party who specially appears, as the company did, to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. See York v. State, 73 Tex. 651, 11 S. W. 869. Without statute the rule is that one may confine his appearance to an attack upon the service without submission generally. Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476, 25 L. Ed. 237; De Witt v. Monroe, 20 Tex. 289. But it was competent for the state to prescribe new consequences to a special .appearance in its courts if it left the party free to stay out, and that was the case here. A statute to that effect is not a denial of due process of law. York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15, 11 Sup. Ct. 9, 34 L. Ed. 604; Kauffman v. Wooters, 138 U. S. 285, 11 Sup. Ct. 298, 34 L. Ed. 962. When the company voluntarily appeared, though specially, it subjected itself to the local practice. Whether the state court should have continued the cause after- the motion to dismiss was ■denied is not a jurisdictional question.

The order denying an injunction is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 F. 339, 129 C.C.A. 599, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-k-t-ry-co-v-goodrich-ca8-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack