Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/403

fABBOTX V. aliABAMÀ OOLD LIS'B INS. 00« 891 �pARROTT r. Alabama Gold Lifb Ins. CoJ �{Circuit Court, K D. Texas. December 15, 1880.) �L liEMOVAL — ExCEniON TO PbOCBSS— JulUSDICTION OB' PeKBON OV DB- FENDANT. �The application of a defendant for the removal oi a cause froma State to a federal court, does not constitute a waiyer of the use and service pf proper process of summons or citation in the cause, where the flrst action of the defendant, in both the state and federal courts, ■wàs to except to the process by which it was attempted to give those courts jnrisdiction of his person. �2. Bebvioe OF Pbooebs— NoN-REsrDKNT CoKi'OBATiON— Pehsonal Jtroo^ �MB?Nff.:, �A certifled copy of a petition and a writ called a " citation,'^ di- recte'd " to any person residing in Mobile countj', Alabama, competent to make oath of the fact of service hereof," was attempted to be served, in accordance with a statute of the state of Texas, (Sess. Acts 1875, p. 170,) on a defendant corporation, by delivering the same to the president of such corporation at Mobile county, Alabama, by a person who made oath that he made such delivery. Hdd, that such service would not authorize such personal judgment against the non- resident corporation as could be enf orced by execution against any property of the defendant found within the state of Texas. — [Ed. �Pennoyer v. iVb/, 95 U. 8. 714. �Motion to Quash Service of Process. �McCoRMicK, D. J. Two questions occur on the considera- tion of this motion: (1) Has the defendant been served with process such as can compel an answer td plaintiff's suit, or permit the court to proceed with the case were no answer, or appearance made by the defendant ? (2) Has the defendant, by obtaining a removal of this cause from the state court and having the transcript entered here, made such an appearance, either in that court or in this, in said cause, as dispenses with the requirements for bringing in parties by service of process ? �The last question will be considered first, as, if it is deter- mined in the affirmative, the other question becomes imma- terial. The statute in reference to removal of causes under which this case is brought here explicitly declares that after reaching this court the case shall proceed as if originally brought in this court. The proceedings for removal appear ����