Riley v. Ritz. Riley v. Bull
This text of 198 F.2d 82 (Riley v. Ritz. Riley v. Bull) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
RILEY
v.
RITZ.
RILEY
v.
BULL et al.
No. 11287.
No. 11288.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 23, 1952.
Decided May 29, 1952.
Miss Mary M. Riley, pro se.
Mr. Lewis A. Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before CLARK, PRETTYMAN and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
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. 335; 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
198 F.2d 82, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 62, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-ritz-riley-v-bull-cadc-1952.