Skip to main content
· 11/3/1902

Cady v. Associated Colonies

Citations

  • 119 F. 420
  • 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5281

Syllabus

<p>1. Removal of Causes—Proceedings after Removal—Vacating Judgment.</p> <p>Where at the time a cause was removed into a federal court a judgment had been rendered against the defendant, but the state court had power under the statute to vacate the same, the federal court was vested on the removal with the same power.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>Where a cause has been properly removed into a federal court, that court cannot remand- it for the purpose of having a motion to vacate a default judgment, rendered against defendant before the removal, determined by the state court.</p> <p>8. Special Appearance—Piling Petition for Removal—Effect.</p> <p>The appearance of a defendant in a state court to file a petition and bond for removal is special, and is not a waiver of the right to object to the jurisdiction of the state court over him.</p> <p>4. Federal Courts—Jurisdiction—Determining Validity of Service on Foreign Corporation.</p> <p>The authority of a federal court into which a cause has been removed to determine whether the state court, by the service made, acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, a foreign corporation, to render judgment against it, is neither derived from nor limited by the laws of the state; nor is such court concluded by the decision of the state court thereon.</p> <p>5. Foreign Corporations—Jurisdiction in Suit against—Validity of Constructive Service.</p> <p>Constructive service on a foreign corporation under a state law applicable to corporations doing business in the state will not confer jurisdiction, where at the time of such service the corporation is not doing business in the state.</p> <p>¶ 5. Service of process on foreign corporations, see note to Bldred v. American Palace Car Co., 45 C. C. A. 3.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that \the right of the United States to acquire the lands cannot be lost by estoppel or laches\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Morrow

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.