Riley v. Ritz

198 F.2d 82

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. Our affirmance as to defendants Peach, Hoffman and Bull is because jurisdiction was not obtained over them. They were not personally served within this jurisdiction, they did not submit to the jurisdiction of the court, and it does not appear that they are inhabitants of the District. Our affirmance as to defendant Ritz rests upon the authority of De Arnaud v. Ainsworth, 1904, 24 App.D.C. 167, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 163, dismissed per curiam, 1905, 199 U.S. 616, 26 S.Ct. 743, 50 L.Ed. ; Farr v. Valentine, 1912, 38 App.D.C. 413; Smith v. O’Brien, 1937, 66 App.D.C. 387, 88 F.2d 769, and United States to Use of Parravicino v. Brunswick, 1934, 63 App.D.C. 65, 69 F.2d 383. See, also, Glass v. Ickes, 1940, 73 App.D.C. 3, 117 F.2d 273, 132 A.L.R. 1328, certiorari denied, 1940, 311 U.S. 718, 61 S.Ct. 441, 85 L.Ed. 468.

Affirmed.