Amy v. Watertown

Citations

• 130 U.S. 301
• 9 S. Ct. 530
• 32 L. Ed. 946
• 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1751

Syllabus

<p>Between the' time when the Process Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 275, went into effect, and the passage of the act of June 1, 1872, 17 Stat. 196, (Rev. Stat. § 914,) it was always in the power of the Federal courts, by general rules, to adapt their practice to the exigencies and conditions of the times; but since the passage of' the latter act the practice, pleadings and forms and modes of proceeding must conform to the state law and to the practice of the state courts, except when Congress has -legislated upon a particular subject, and prescribed a rule.</p> <p>When a state statute prescribes a particular method of serving mesne pro- . cess, that method must be followed; and this rule is especially exacting in reference to corporations.</p> <p>In the-construction of a state statute in a matter purely domestic this court is always strongly disposed to give great weight to the decisions of the highest tribunal of the State.</p> <p>The-provisions of the Revised Statutes of Wisconsin which require service of process generally on cities to be “ by delivering a copy thereof to the mayor andj city clerk,” and the provision of the charter of the city of Watertown which requires such service to be made by leaving a copy with thé mayor, have been held by the highest court of the State to be peremptory and to exclude all other .officers, and it has also held that the fact that there is a vacancy in the office of mayor does not authorize service to be made.upon some other substituted officer: and this court concurs with theft court in this construction.,</p> <p>Broughton v. Pensacola, 93. U. S. 266, and Mobile v. Watson, 116 U. S. 289, differ essentially from this case.</p> <p>' A motion to set aside a judgment if made, and service thereof jnade at the term at Which the judgment is rendered, may be heard and decided at the next term of the court if properly continued by order of court.</p>