Davis v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

Citations

• 217 U.S. 157
• 30 S. Ct. 463
• 54 L. Ed. 708
• 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1951

Syllabus

<p>Even though the certificate is not in proper form this court can review the judgment of the Circuit Court under § 5 of the act of 1891 if the record shows clearly that the only matter tried and decided in that court was one of jurisdiction.</p> <p>The fact that a writ of. error was sued out from the Circuit Court of Appeals to the Circuit Court and dismissed is not a bar to the jurisdiction of this court to review the judgment of the Circuit Court on the question of its jurisdiction as a Federal court.</p> <p>A court cannot without personal service acquire jurisdiction over the person, and it is open to one not served, but whose property is at, tached, to appear specially to contest the control of the court over such property; and in this case the appearance of the defendant.for that purpose was special and not general.</p> <p>Neither the enactment of § 5258, Rev. Stat., nor of the Interstate Commerce Law by Congress abrogated the attachment laws of the States.</p> <p>Although different views have been taken in several States as to the ■ immunity from seizure and garnishment under attachment of cars engaged in interstate1 commerce and credits due for interstate transportation, this court holds that it was within the jurisdiction of the state court to seize and hold the cars and credits seized and garnisheed in this case, notwithstanding their connection with interstate commerce.</p>