« PreviousContinue »
thereto; 39 contempts; 40 the manner of taking exceptions, and reserving objections for review during a trial; 41 bills of exceptions; 42 the determination as to what constitutes a final judgment which is reviewable ; 48 the computation of time within which to sue out writs of error; 44 the practice in suing out writs of error and the proceedings upon them,46 including the power of the court of review in respect to the judgment to be entered upon a reversal.46 “Such proceedings are governed entirely by the acts of Congress, the common law, and the ancient English statutes.
A Federal court is not bound to follow a State statute providing that the case must be dismissed unless proceedings are therein taken within one year after a reversal by the State Supreme Court.48
The Revised Statutes provide “The several circuit and district courts may, from time to time, and in any manner not inconsistent with any law of the United States, or with any rule prescribed by the Supreme Court under the preceding section, make rules and orders directing the returning of writs and processes, the filing of pleadings, the taking of rules, the entering
in determining who is the successful party, the Federal courts should follow the State statutes and deci. sions. Scatcherd v. Love, C. C. A., 166 Fed. 53. See § 408, supra. As to security for costs, see Henning v. W. U. Tel. Co., 40 Fed. 658; O'Brien v. Hearn, 125 Fed. 95; supra, 8 425.
39 Supra, § 427; Kaill v. Board of Directors, C. C. A., 194 Fed. 73.
40 Supra, $$ 428-436.
41 Chicago Great Western R. Co. v. Le Valley, C. C. A., 233 Fed. 384.
42 Consumers Cotton Oil Co. v. Ashburn, C. C. A., 81 Fed. 331, infra, $ 479.
43 Chicago Great Western R. Co. v. Le Valley, C. C. A., 233 Fed. 384.
44 Siegelshoffer v. Penn License Co., C. C. A., 248 Fed. 226.
45 Western Dredging Co. v. Heldmaier, 116 Fed. 179; Francisco v. Chicago & A. R. Co., C. C. A., 149 · Fed. 354; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. McKee, C. C. A., 50 Fed. 906; McClellan v. Pyeatt, C. Ç. A., 50 Fed. 686; Kentucky L. & A. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, C. C. A., 63 Fed. 93; infra, chapter XXXVI on Writs of Error and Appeals; Farmer v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 205 Fed. 319; McBride v. Neal, C. C. A., 214 Fed. 966; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Aldridge, 219 Fed. 836.
46 Farmer v. Atlantic Coastline R. Co., 205 Fed. 319, 323.
47 Camp v. Gress, C. C. A., 250 U. S. 308, 318
48 Manitowoc . Malting Co. Feuchtwanger, 196 Fed. 506.
and making up of judgments by default, and other matters in vacation, and otherwise regulate their own practice as may be necessary or convenient for the advancement of justice and the prevention of delays in proceedings." 49 This authorized those courts to direct that writs, issued from them, shall be returned within a different time than that prescribed by the State laws.50
It has been held that as to the following matters the District Courts will, in civil actions at common law, follow the statutes of the respective states where they are held : form of writ,51 except the teste and signature, 52 indorsement of writ,58 indorsement of summons;
54 the return of process; not when the court otherwise directs; 56 right of assignee to sue in his own name ; 57 personal service of writ and process on individuals 58 and on corporations,59 at least if domestic corpo
49 U. S. R. S., § 918, Comp. St. $ 1544.
50 Gokey v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 130 Fed. 992; aff’d Boston & Maine Railroad v. Gokey, 210 U. S. 155, 52 L. ed. 1002. U. S. v. U. S. F. & G. Co., C. C. A., 186 Fed. 477.
51 Brown v. C. & 0. C. Co., 4 Fed. 770. See Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 16 Fed. 181. It has been held that a suit in the United States Circuit Court for the penalty provided by the Act of 1885, ch. 164, 83, for violation of the provisions of the act relating to alien contracts for labor, may be properly begun by capias in accordance with the State law. U. S. v. Banister, 70 Fed. 44. But see Shepard v. Adams, 168 U. S. 618, 42 L. ed. 602.
52 Infra, $ 455.
53 Brown v. Pond, 5 Fed. 31, 37. But see $ 455, infra.
54 U. S. v. Rose, 14 Fed. 681.
55 Gokey v. Boston & M. R. Co., 130 Fed. 992; aff'd as Boston & Maine Railroad v. Gokey, 210 U. S. 155, 52 L. ed. 1002.
56 U. S. R. S., § 918; Gokey v. Boston & M, R. Co., 130 Fed. 992;
aff'd as Boston & Maine Railroad v. Gokey, 210 U. S. 155, 52 L. ed. 1002; infra, $ 455.
57 Edmunds v. Illinois C. R. Co., 80 Fed. 78, where the cause of action arose under a Federal statute, the Interstate Commerce Act. Where there is no State statute, the suit must be brought in the name of the assignor. Nederland L. I. Co. v. Hall, 84 Fed. 278; Shaffer v. Federal Cement Co., 225 Fed. 893; infra, $$ 454b, 454c.
58 Shampeau v. Connecticut R. L. Co., 37 Fed. 771; Wilson v. Fine, 37 Fed. 789; Amy v. Watertown, 130 U. S. 301, 32 L. ed. 946. See supra, $$ 163-166. So held as to the form of a return of service. Trimble v. Erie El. M. Co., 89 Fed. 51; Wilson v. Hurst, Peters C. C. 441; U. S. v. Lotridge, 1 McLean, 246.
59 Re Louisville Underwriters, 134 U. S. 488, 493, 33 L. ed. 991, 994; Miller's Adm 'r v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 41 Fed. 431; McCormick H. Mach. Co. v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41, 33 L. cd. 833; Société Foncière v. Milliken, 135 U. S. 304, 34 L. ed. 208. See supra, $8 164-164d.
rations; 60 joinder of parties ; 61 joinder of causes of action ; 62 joinder of defenses ; 63 form of pleading ; 64 verification of pleading; 65 time, 66 and manner 67 of service of pleading and amendment of pleading, 68 except as to defects of form ; 69 matters that may be proved under the general denial; 70 set off and counterclaim of cause of action at common law ; 71 interpleader; notice of trial or of argument ; 73 time of filing referee's report ; 74 time of bringing a case on for trial and of entry of judgment for insufficiency of answer; 75 discontinuance; 76 compulsory
compulsory dismis60 Amy v. Watertown, 130 V. S. 70 Yocum v. Parker, C. C. A., 130 30, 32 L. ed. 946.
Fed. 770; infra, $ 454e. 61 Perry v. Mechanics’ Mut. Ins. 71 Partridge v. Felix Mut. L. I. Co., vi Fed. 478; Delaware Co. Co., 15 Wall, 573, 21 L. ed. 229; Com'rt v. Diebold S. Co., 133 U. S. Dushane v. Benedict, 120 U. S. 630, 473, 488, 33 L. ed. 674, 680; infra, 30 L. ed. 810; Charnley v. Sibley, $ 454b. Nonjoinder of husband in C. C. A., 73 Fed. 980. Contra, Jewaction by wife, although the woman ett Car Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 107 is an alien. Morning Journal Ass'n Fed. 622, holding to the contrary v. Smith, C. C. A., 56 Fed. 141.
of the cases in the Supreme Court 62 Castro v. De Uriarte, 12 Fed. that no affirmative judgment can be 250. But see O'Connell v. Reed, C. awarded upon a counterclaim. But C. A., 56 Fed. 531; Bowden v. Burn- not of equitable set-off. Scott v. ham, C. C. A., 59 Fed. 752; Holt v. Armstrong, 146 U. S. 499, 36 L. ed. Bergevin, 60 Fed. 1.
1059. 63 Cole v. Carson, C. C. A., 153 72 Harris v. Hess, 10 Fed. 263. In Fed. 278; Leonard v. Merchants' the absence of statute, interpleader Coal Co., C. C. A., 162 Fed. 885. or the bringing in of a new party
64 U. 8. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. cannot be ordered at common law. Co., 153 Fed. 918.
Bertha Z. & M. Co. v. Clarico, 61 65 West v. Home Ins. Co., 18 Fed. Fed. 132, 136. For the practice.in 622; Cottier v. Stimson, 18 Fed. equity, see supra, $ 157. Huxley v. 689,
Pennsylvania Warehousing & S. D. 66 Ricard Inhabitants New
Co., C. C. A., 184 Fed. 705. Providence, 5 Fed. 433. But not 73 Rosenbach v. Dreyfuss, 2 Fed. necessarily as to the return day. 23. But see Osborne v. Detroit, 28 Ewing v. Burnham, 74 Fed. 384. Fed. 385.
67 Wilson v. Fine, 38 Fed. 789. 74 Parker v. Ogdensburg & L. C.
68 Rosenbach v. Dreyfuss, 1 Fed. R. Co., 79 Fed. 817. 391. But see U. S. R. S., $ 954; 75 Springs v. James, 172 Fed. 626. Erstein v. Rothschild, 22 Fed. 61; 76 Nussbaum y. Northern Ins. Co., supra, &$ 208, 211, and infra, $ 454. 40 Fed. 337; Gassman v. Jarvis, 94 69 Manitowoc Malting Co.
Fed. 603. Where the State statute Muechtwanger, 169 Fed. 983. See
permitted a plaintiff to dismiss, $$ 208, 211, supra.
without prejudice, before the final
sal or non-suit; 77 form of a verdict ; 78 manner of entering and recording judgment, including provisions for the entry of judgment against one or more defendants; 79 assessment of damages after judgment by default; 80 the right to open judgment by default; 81 but in the Second Circuit a default was opened in a case where this would not have been permitted by the State practice; 82 and it has been held that a Federal court at common law can not set aside, after the term of entry, a judgment by default,83 although the State practice authorizes such an order; practice upon application to open a default; suspension of judgment pending writ of error. 86
In following a State statute, the Federal courts usually read the word “county” as “judicial district.” 86 A State statsubmission of the case to the jury, Co. v. Kever, C. C. A., 2 Ct., 260 it was held to be error to refuse to Fed. 534, 541; certiorari denied 250 allow the plaintiff to do this before U. S. 665, 40 Sup. Ct. 213, 64 L. ed. a peremptory instruction for the de- But see the strong dissenting opinfendant, although the motion was ion of Manton J. As the author not made until after the judge had was of counsel in the case below, he said that he would sustain the de- forbears the expression of his own fendant's motion for a verdict. opinion. Contra Wylie Permanent Knight v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., C. Camping Co. v. Lynch, C. C. A., 195 C. A., 180 Fed. 368. See infra, Fed. 386, 388, 392, 402. 8 473g.
83 U. S. v. One Trunk, 155 Fed. 77 Central Transp. Co. v. Pull- 651. See Bronson v. Schulten, 104 man's Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 24, U. S. 410, 26 L. ed. 797; Phillips 29, 39, 11 Sup. Ct. 478, 481, 35 L. v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 29 L. ed. ed. 55.
1013; Rio Grande Irrigation Co. v. 78 Glenn v. Sumner, 132 U. S. 152, Gildersleeve, 174 U. S. 603, 609, 43 156, 10 Sup. Ct. 41, 33 L. ed. 301 ; L. ed. 1103, 1105; infra, $ 481. ConKnight v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., C. tra, Hamburg-Bremen Fire Ins., C. A., 180 Fed. 368, 372.
Co. v. Pelzer Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 76 79 Sawin v. Kenny, 93 U. S. 289, Fed. 479, 481; Travelers' Protective 23 L. ed. 926; Knight v. Illinois Ass ’n v. Gilbert, 55 L.R.A. 538, 111 Cent. R, Co., C. C. A., 180 Fed. 368, Fed. 269, 276. 372.
84 Brown v. Phila. W. & Br. Co., 9 80 Loewe v. Union Savings Bank, Fed. 183. 226 Fed. 294.
85 U. S. v. Sturgis, 14 Fed. 810. 81 Brown v. Phila. W. & Br. Co., 86 Lung Chung v. No. Pae. Ry. C. C. D. Delaware, 9 Fed. 193; Co., 19 Fed. 254, 257; Treadwell v. Wylie Permanent Camping Co. v. Seymour, 41 Fed. 579; Miller's Lynch, C. C. A., 195 Fed. 386, 388, Adm’r v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 41 392, 402. But see infra, $ 481.
Fed. 431. 82 Phila. & Reading Coal & Iron
ute authorizing an action to be brought in a firm name was not followed in an action at common law in the Federal court there held.87 A State statute allowing an association consisting of seven or more to sue and be sued in the name of one of its officers, was followed at common law in the Federal court sitting in such State,88 but not in a Federal court sitting in another State.89 A State statute providing that a county can be sued only in a specified court ; 90 or that a foreign corporation cannot sue until it has complied with certain statutory require
or that an action cannot be brought upon a judgment without leave of the court that rendered it,92 or that a special appearance for the purpose of objection to the jurisdiction is equivalent to a general appearance, 93 or regulating the practice in applying for, and giving the right in certain cases to postponements of trials or to continuances,94 is not binding on a Federal court. The fact that the State practice permits an original application by a municipal bondholder for a mandamus does not deprive a Federal court of jurisdiction over an action by him to recover a judgment which can only be enforced by such a writ.95 It has been held that a motion to dismiss an action at common law as frivolous may be made at any time. Exemptions from service of process have been discussed in the chapter on subpænas.97
§ 454. Common law pleading. In general. In actions at common law in civil causes, the District Courts of the United
87 Adams v. May, 27 Fed. 907.
88 Hoey v. Coleman, 46 Fed. 221, 225. See supra, § 48.
89 Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677, 682, 32 L. ed. 800, 801. See supra, 8 48.
90 Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118, 19 L. ed. 86; Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529, 33 L. ed. 766; Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. $. 529, 37 L. ed. 546.
91 Bank of British N. A. v. Barling, 44 Fed. 641; aff'd as Barling v. British Bank of N. A., C. C. A., 50 Fed. 260,
92 Phelps v. O'Brien Co., 2 Dill. 318; Union Tr. Co. v. Rochester &. P. R. Co., 29 Fed. 609; supra, $ 83.
93 So. Pac. Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202, 209, 36 L. ed. 943, 945. Cf. Mexican C. Ry. Co. v. Pinckney, 149 U. S. 194, 37 L. ed. 699.
94 Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Nelson, C. C. A., 50 Fed. 418; infra, $ 473a.
95 Shepard v. Tulare, 94 Fed. 1.
96 O'Connell v. Mason, C. C. A., 132 Fed. 245; Webb v. Fisher, 109 Tenn. 701, 60 L.R.A. 791, 72 S. W. 110.
97 Supra, $ 167.