Non-Magnetic Watch Co. v. Association Horlogere Suisse of Geneva

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Non-Magnetic Watch Co. v. Association Horlogere Suisse of Geneva

45 F. 210, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1727

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedFebruary 11, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 45 F. 210 (Non-Magnetic Watch Co. v. Association Horlogere Suisse of Geneva) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Non-Magnetic Watch Co. v. Association Horlogere Suisse of Geneva, 45 F. 210, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1727 (circtsdny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Lacombe, Circuit Judge.

When the subpoena to appear and answer was served, the bill of complaint failed to show jurisdiction of the defendant corporation, the Association Horlogere Suisse, and the marshal’s return shows service only upon Louis E. Bornard, who is separately named as a defendant, and none upon the corporation, as was to be expected, in view of the fact that, at that time, complainants were expecting to bring it in .by service by publication under section 8 of the act of 1875. Upon the record as it then was, (the bill and marshal’s return,) the corporation was entitled to remain quiescent. The subsequent amendment of the complaint, alleging that the defendant corporation was engaged in business here, did not change the situation. Whether the defendant was served or not is not to be determined by the state of the case as it was when the marshal’s return was made. The decree pro confesso against the Association Horlogere Suisse is therefore vacated.

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

Lacombe, Circuit Judge.

When the subpoena to appear and answer was served, the bill of complaint failed to show jurisdiction of the defendant corporation, the Association Horlogere Suisse, and the marshal’s return shows service only upon Louis E. Bornard, who is separately named as a defendant, and none upon the corporation, as was to be expected, in view of the fact that, at that time, complainants were expecting to bring it in .by service by publication under section 8 of the act of 1875. Upon the record as it then was, (the bill and marshal’s return,) the corporation was entitled to remain quiescent. The subsequent amendment of the complaint, alleging that the defendant corporation was engaged in business here, did not change the situation. Whether the defendant was served or not is not to be determined by the state of the case as it was when the marshal’s return was made. The decree pro confesso against the Association Horlogere Suisse is therefore vacated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F. 210, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/non-magnetic-watch-co-v-association-horlogere-suisse-of-geneva-circtsdny-1891.