« ПретходнаНастави »
Opinion of the Court.
Railway, 148 U. S. 372, 379; Hohorst, petitioner, 150 U. S. 653, 664. In Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, cited for the respondent, which was brought to this court by writ of error, the Circuit Court had entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant, setting aside the summons, and relieving the defendant from appearing to answer the complaint. But in the case now before us that court has done no more than to decline to enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not sue out a writ of error before a final judgment had been entered against him; and he could not compel the Circuit Court to proceed to final judgment, otherwise than by a writ of mandamus.
But the Circuit Court rightly held that it had no jurisdiction to enter judgment against the defendants, because there had been no lawful service of the summons upon them. It appears by the record, and is not now denied by the petitioner, that the defendants were a partnership. In the absence of local statute, no valid judgment can be rendered against the members of a partnership without service upon them. D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165. The Revised Statutes of Texas of 1895 contain the following provisions :
“Art. 1223. In any suit against a foreign private or public corporation, joint stock company or association, or acting corporation or association, citation or other process may be served on the president, vice-president, secretary or treasurer, or general manager, or upon any local agent within this State, of such corporation, joint stock company or association or acting corporation or association.
“Art. 1224. In suits against partners, the citation may be served upon one of the firm, and such service shall be sufficient to authorize a judgment against the firm and against the partner actually served.”
It is argued, in behalf of the petitioner, that the defendants in this case were an “association," within the meaning of article 1223 of these statutes, and therefore service on their local agent within the State was sufficient. But upon reading that article in connection with article 1224, which immediately follows it, it is manifest that the words in the former section, “cor
Statement of the Case.
poration, joint stock company or association, or acting corporation or association,” were not intended to include partnerships ; and that the mode of service in actions against partnerships was regulated by the latter section, which requires service in such actions to be made upon one of the firm. As no such service had been made in the case before us, the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action, or to render judgment against the defendants.
Writ of mandamus denied.
FARMERS LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY v. LAKE
STREET ELEVATED RAILROAD CO.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
No. 108. Argued January 19, 1900. - Decided March 26, 1900.
A suit in equity is commenced by filing a bill of complaint; and this gen
eral rule prevails also by statute in Illinois. As between the immediate parties in a proceeding in rem jurisdiction at
taches when the bill is filed and the process has issued, and when that process is duly served, in accordance with the rules of practice of the
court. The possession of the res in case of conflict of jurisdiction vests the court
which has first acquired jurisdiction with power to hear and determine all controversies relating thereto, and, for the time being, disables other
courts of coördinate jurisdiction from exercising a like power. This rule is not restricted, in its application, to cases where property has
been actually seized under judicial process before a second suit is insti. tuted in another court, but it applies as well where suits are brought to enforce liens against specific property, to marshal assets, administer trusts, liquidate insolvent estates, and in suits of a similar nature, and it is applicable to the present case.
The Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois in the month of August, 1892, with a capital stock of five million dollars, which was increased in the month of April, 1893, to ten millions of dol
Statement of the Case.
lars, consisting of one hundred thousand shares of the par value of one hundred dollars each.
On April 7, 1893, the company made and delivered a certain mortgage or trust deed to the American Trust and Savings Bank, a corporation of the State of Illinois, and to the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, a corporation of the State of New York, as trustees, to secure the payment of bonds in the aggregate amount of six million five hundred thousand dollars. The said trust companies duly accepted said trust, and the mortgage was afterwards, on May 6, 1893, recorded in the recorder's office of Cook County, Illinois. The amount and number of said bonds was afterwards, in pursuance of provisions contained in the mortgage, increased to 7574 bonds of the par value of $1000 each, making the total mortgage indebtedness $7,574,000. The mortgage contained the usual provisions authorizing the trustees, in case of default in pay. ment of the interest coupons for a period of six months, to declare the entire principal debt to have become due and payable, and to proceed by foreclosure or otherwise to enforce the terms of the mortgage.
On January 30, 1896, at ten o'clock and thirty-five minutes A.M., the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, as a corporation of the State of New York, filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois a bill of complaint against the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company, the Union Elevated Railroad Company, the North western Elevated Railroad Company, the West Chicago Street Railroad Company and the American Trust and Savings Bank, all corporations organized under the laws of the State of Illinois.
The bill alleged that default had been made by the Lake Street Elevated Company in the payment of all interest coupons payable on the 1st day of July, 1895, and on the 1st day of January, 1896; that the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company had become insolvent, and was unable to pay its debts and obligations; that a foreclosure suit was necessary, and pending the proceeding that it was expedient and necessary to have a receiver appointed. The bill further alleged
Statement of the Case.
that the Union Elevated Railroad Company, the West Chicago Street Railroad Company and the Northwestern Elevated Railroad Company claimed to have acquired some interest, by lease or otherwise, in the mortgaged property, and that the American Trust and Savings Bank, named as co-trustee in the mortgage, had been requested to join with it as complainant in the bill of foreclosure, but bad declined and refused so to do or to take any action in the premises, and was therefore made a party defendant. A subpoena was thereupon issued directed to the several defendants, commanding them to appear and answer on the first Monday of March next thereafter.
On the same day, January 30, 1896, shortly after the said bill had been filed and process had issued, the Lake Stret t Elevated Railroad Company filed in the Superior Court of Cock County, State of Illinois, a bill of complaint against the Farners' Loan and Trust Company, the American Trust and Savings Bank and the Northern Trust Company.
The bill, after setting forth the facts attending the issue of the mortgage, alleged that at the time said mortgage was executed and delivered the Farmers' Loan and Trust Comp:iny, being a corporation under the laws of the State of New York, had not, and had not since, complied with the laws of the State of Illinois, which required a deposit with the auditor of public accounts for the benefit of the creditors of said company of the sum of two hundred thousand dollars in stocks of the United States or municipal bonds of the State of Illinois, or in mortgages on improved and productive real estate of such State, being first liens thereon, and the real estate being worth at least twice the amount loaned thereon; that, at the time of the execution and delivery and acceptance of said trust under said mortgage, the Lake Street Company, the complainant, did not know that the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company had not complied with the laws of the State of Illinois; and that since the acceptance of said trust the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company had been doing business in the State of Illinois, and had appointed one William Burry as its agent to enforce compliance by the Lake Street Elevated Company with the trusts reposed
Statement of the Case.
in the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, under said mortgage or deed of trust, and that said Burry, as such agent, had acted and still was acting by virtue of the authority claimed to be vested in the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company under said mortgage.
This bill further alleged that the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company had been unable to earn sufficient money in operating its railroad to pay the interest upon the bonded indebtedness secured by the said mortgage or deed of trust;, that, notwithstanding such fact, one William Ziegler, of New York city, conspiring and confederating with various persons, and altogether representing 610 bonds of the total issue of 7574 bonds, made a demand upon the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company and the American Trust and Savings Bank that they proceed to foreclose said mortgage, and take possession under and by virtue of the powers contained in said mortgage and the authority vested in said trustees, or to file a bill to foreclose such inortgage; that the complainant, the Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company, filed on December 30, 1895, a bill in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against said William Ziegler and others, seeking to enjoin them, and each of them, and the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company and the American Trust and Savings Bank, from instituting any proceedings to foreclose said mortgage, and, for reasons set forth, an injunction immediately and without notice was prayed for.
It appears that such an injunction was issued, but that subsequently said cause was, on petition of Ziegler and other bondholders, removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
The bill in the present case proceeded to allege that no other persons than Ziegler and those associated with him as holders of the 610 bonds were asking or demanding of the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company any action or proceeding, but notwithstanding it proposed and would file a bill to foreclose the said mortgage for failure to pay the interest upon the bonded indebtedness; that the holders of 6574 bonds, issued under said mortgage, had requested the trustees to take no action whatso ever under said mortgage or trust deed with reference to the