Richardson v. Ingram Corp.

Third Circuit

Richardson v. Ingram Corp.

374 F.2d 502, 1967 A.M.C. 918, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7087

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 15, 1967

DocketNo. 16174

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 374 F.2d 502 (Richardson v. Ingram Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richardson v. Ingram Corp., 374 F.2d 502, 1967 A.M.C. 918, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7087 (3d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit in admiralty in which the appellant asserts claims for personal injury and for maintenance and cure. The appellee is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Tennessee; the cause of action arose in Mississippi. The appellant attempted to effect service of process by certified mail addressed to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 4(d) (7); 15 P.S. § 2852-1011, subd. B. The matter came before the court below on the respondent’s exceptions in which it challenged the service as invalid and ineffective. The court sustained the challenge, quashed the service and dismissed the libel. This appeal followed.

The appellant now concedes that under our recent decision in Hartley v. Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc., 373 F.2d 799 (Jan. 27, 1967), the service of process was invalid and properly quashed. However, she argues that jurisdiction of the libel should have been retained in order to afford her an opportunity to effect service by attachment or some other means. We could agree if there had been some showing in the court below that there was a reasonable prospect that service by alternative means could be effected in the near future. There was no such showing. We believe that the dismissal of the libel under these circumstances was not an abuse of discretion.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit in admiralty in which the appellant asserts claims for personal injury and for maintenance and cure. The appellee is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Tennessee; the cause of action arose in Mississippi. The appellant attempted to effect service of process by certified mail addressed to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 4(d) (7); 15 P.S. § 2852-1011, subd. B. The matter came before the court below on the respondent’s exceptions in which it challenged the service as invalid and ineffective. The court sustained the challenge, quashed the service and dismissed the libel. This appeal followed.

The appellant now concedes that under our recent decision in Hartley v. Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc., 373 F.2d 799 (Jan. 27, 1967), the service of process was invalid and properly quashed. However, she argues that jurisdiction of the libel should have been retained in order to afford her an opportunity to effect service by attachment or some other means. We could agree if there had been some showing in the court below that there was a reasonable prospect that service by alternative means could be effected in the near future. There was no such showing. We believe that the dismissal of the libel under these circumstances was not an abuse of discretion.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 F.2d 502, 1967 A.M.C. 918, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-ingram-corp-ca3-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack