King v. Davis
Citations
- 137 F. 222
- 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5219
Syllabus
<p>1. Federal Courts—Judgments—Vacation after Term—Process—Fraudulent Service.</p> <p>A federal law court has no power to vacate its judgment of a former term, founded on a false, but apparently valid, ■ return of service of process. Such judgment may be vacated by suit in-equity if plaintiff at law joined in the fraud of the process server, or. if the latter was not an official. Such judgment not vacated in equity, if plaintiff at law did not join in the fraud, and if process server an official.</p> <p>2. Same—Constructive Service—Defective Return—Amendment.</p> <p>Where, pending a motion to vacate a judgment in ejectment, based on invalid returns of constructive service of process, a motion to amend was made, and the amended return disclosed a valid service, the motion will not be granted if the facts stated in the amended return are true.</p> <p>3. Same—Substituted Service—Amendment—Notice.</p> <p>Where substituted service on a defendant in ejectment, made by leaving a copy with his wife, was invalid, for failure of the return to state that the wife was a member of his family, the subsequent personal service on defendant of a notice of an application by plaintiff for leave to amend the declaration was insufficient to confer jurisdiction of such defendant.</p> <p>4. Same—Amendment of Process—Notice.</p> <p>Where a return of substituted service on a defendant in ejectment was fatally defective, and the court had not otherwise acquired jurisdiction of him, an application to amend such return will not be granted, in the discretion of the court, without notice.</p> <p>5. Same—Entry of Judgment.</p> <p>Where the original declaration and notice and a notice of application to amend were properly served on a defendant in ejectment instituted In 1896, but the action was retired from the docket, without judgment against her, in 1900, she is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before judgment can thereafter be properly entered against her.</p> <p>6. Same—Vacati
Judges: McDowell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Bronson v. SchultenSupreme Court· 1882-01-18· cited 340×
- Marshall v. HolmesSupreme Court· 1891-11-09· cited 289×
- Krippendorf v. HydeSupreme Court· 1884-01-28· cited 261×
- Eyster v. GaffSupreme Court· 1876-02-14· cited 223×
- Bank of the United States v. HalsteadSupreme Court· 1825-03-18· cited 128×
- Smith v. GaleSupreme Court· 1892-04-11· cited 117×
- Boyle v. Zacharie & TurnerSupreme Court· 1832-02-21· cited 114×
- Tilton v. CofieldSupreme Court· 1876-11-20· cited 99×
- Hall v. LanningSupreme Court· 1875-12-13· cited 85×
- President of the Bank of the United States v. MossSupreme Court· 1847-12-21· cited 79×
- Knox County v. HarshmanSupreme Court· 1890-01-27· cited 71×
- Lacassagne v. ChapuisSupreme Court· 1892-03-21· cited 58×
- Cooke v. AverySupreme Court· 1893-01-23· cited 55×
- City of Manning v. German Ins.Eighth Circuit· 1901-03-11· cited 42×
- Massingill v. DownsSupreme Court· 1849-03-13· cited 38×
- Kibbe v. BensonSupreme Court· 1874-01-19· cited 33×
- Walker v. RobbinsSupreme Court· 1853-03-18· cited 31×
- Walden v. Bodley's HeirsSupreme Court· 1850-05-24· cited 26×
- Humphreys v. Leggett, Smith, & LawrenceSupreme Court· 1850-05-18· cited 25×
- Freeman v. DawsonSupreme Court· 1884-01-28· cited 24×
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.