Davis v. Cleveland, C., C. & St.L. Ry. Co., 217 U.S. 157 (1910)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 217 U.S. 150, click here.

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

No. 123

Argued March 3, 4, 1910
Decided April 4, 1910
217 U.S. 157

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

Syllabus

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.

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.

A court cannot without personal service acquire jurisdiction over the person, and it is open to one not served, but whose property is attached, 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.

Neither the enactment of § 5258, Rev.Stat., nor of the Interstate Commerce Law by Congress abrogated the attachment law of the states. Although different views have been taken in several states as to the immunity from seizure and garnishment under attachment of cars engaged in interstate 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.

The facts, which involve the liability to attachment of cars used in interstate commerce, are stated in the opinion.