Riley v. Ritz

District of Columbia

Riley v. Ritz

198 F.2d 82

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMay 29, 1952

DocketNos. 11287, 11288

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 F.2d 82 (Riley v. Ritz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Riley v. Ritz, 198 F.2d 82 (D.D.C. 1952).

Pincite

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. [83]*83335; 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.

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

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. [83]*83335; 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 F.2d 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-ritz-dcd-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack