Peaslee v. Haberstro

19 F. Cas. 71, 15 Blatchf. 472, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2063
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York
DecidedJanuary 21, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 19 F. Cas. 71 (Peaslee v. Haberstro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peaslee v. Haberstro, 19 F. Cas. 71, 15 Blatchf. 472, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2063 (circtndny 1879).

Opinion

WALLACE, Circuit Judge.

The motion to set aside the summons in this action must be granted, upon the ground that the summons was not signed by the clerk or under the seal of the court. Section 911 of the Revised Statutes of the United States prescribes, that “all writs and processes issuing from the courts of the United States shall be under the seal of the court from which they issue, and shall be signed by the clerk thereof.” This provision is not inconsistent with, and, therefore, is not repealed by, the subsequent act of congress (Act June 1, 1S72. 8 5; 17 Stat. 197), now. embodied in section 914 of the Revised Statutes, which enacts, that “the practice, pleadings and forms and modes of proceeding in civil causes, other than equity and admiralty causes, in the circuit and district courts, shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice, pleadings and forms and modes of proceeding existing at the time in like causes in the courts of record of the state within which such circuit of district courts are held.” Giving due effect to the later act, the practice, and forms and modes of proceeding, in the courts of the United States, in common law actions, is to conform to, and be regulated by, that of’the state courts, when there is no statute of the United States prescribing different practice or forms or modes of procedure. When the [72]*72statutes of the United States aré silent, the practice of the state courts will prevail, but, when those statutes speak, they are controlling. If the summons in this case had been signed by the clerk, it could be amended as regards the seal. As it is, there is no summons in the nature of process known to this court. The summons is set aside.

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

Related

United States v. Murray
561 F. Supp. 448 (Court of International Trade, 1983)
Chisholm v. Gilmer
299 U.S. 99 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Eley v. Gamble
75 F.2d 171 (Fourth Circuit, 1935)
In re Condemnation Suits by United States
234 F. 443 (E.D. Tennessee, 1916)
United States ex rel. Miller v. Mitchell
223 F. 805 (E.D. New York, 1915)
Leas & McVitty v. Merriman
132 F. 510 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia, 1904)
United States v. American Lumber Co.
80 F. 309 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1897)
United States v. Turner
50 F. 734 (D. South Carolina, 1892)
Wolf v. Cook
40 F. 432 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1889)
Paine v. Warren
33 F. 357 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1888)
Pentlarge v. Kirby
20 F. 898 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1884)
Middleton Paper Co. v. Rock River Paper Co.
19 F. 252 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Wisconsin, 1884)
United States v. Rose
14 F. 681 (S.D. New York, 1882)
Norton v. City of Dover
14 F. 106 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1882)
Castro v. De Uriarte
12 F. 250 (S.D. New York, 1882)
Dwight v. Merritt
4 F. 614 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 F. Cas. 71, 15 Blatchf. 472, 1879 U.S. App. LEXIS 2063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peaslee-v-haberstro-circtndny-1879.