Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Baum

Hamilton Circuit Court

Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Baum

12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 271, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 262

DecidedJanuary 11, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 271 (Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Baum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Baum, 12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 271, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 262 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

In this case we think the judgment of the court below should be affirmed. The proceeding as instituted in the magistrate’s court was in attachment against the plaintiff in error within the provisions of Section 6489, and personal property of the railway company was attached.

The plaintiff in' error contends that under Section 6478 it is exempt from such proceeding. We think, however, that this action relates -only to the service of process against a railroad company under certain restrictions whereby jurisdiction of the corporation is personally sought and is not in conflict with Section 6489, where jurisdiction over property of a foreign railway company is secured by an attachment; whereupon Section 6496 and following sections provide how the matter or thing attached shall be disposed of and upon its sale thé manner in which the proceeds shall be applied to the payment of the indebtedness.

It is not sough't-to bring the corporation personally into court, but the plaintiff in error being a foreign corporation with no officer upon whom a summons can be served or place of doing business in the county and the claim being a debt or demand arising upon contract, the right of attachment against the property of such a corporation is given by this section. It is evident that the sections of -the code of civil procedure relating only to the jurisdiction over the person are not applicable under the section relating to. attachments where jurisdiction is sought to be obtained over the property attached. We are of the opinion therefore there is no error in the judgment of the court below and the same is affirmed..

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

In this case we think the judgment of the court below should be affirmed. The proceeding as instituted in the magistrate’s court was in attachment against the plaintiff in error within the provisions of Section 6489, and personal property of the railway company was attached.

The plaintiff in' error contends that under Section 6478 it is exempt from such proceeding. We think, however, that this action relates -only to the service of process against a railroad company under certain restrictions whereby jurisdiction of the corporation is personally sought and is not in conflict with Section 6489, where jurisdiction over property of a foreign railway company is secured by an attachment; whereupon Section 6496 and following sections provide how the matter or thing attached shall be disposed of and upon its sale thé manner in which the proceeds shall be applied to the payment of the indebtedness.

It is not sough't-to bring the corporation personally into court, but the plaintiff in error being a foreign corporation with no officer upon whom a summons can be served or place of doing business in the county and the claim being a debt or demand arising upon contract, the right of attachment against the property of such a corporation is given by this section. It is evident that the sections of -the code of civil procedure relating only to the jurisdiction over the person are not applicable under the section relating to. attachments where jurisdiction is sought to be obtained over the property attached. We are of the opinion therefore there is no error in the judgment of the court below and the same is affirmed..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 271, 1909 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-pacific-railway-co-v-baum-ohcircthamilton-1909.