Where a bill was filed in the District Court of the United
States for the Northern District of Mississippi against four
defendants, who all resided in Alabama, two of whom appeared for
the purpose of moving to dismiss the bill, and the other two
declined to appear altogether, nor was process served upon them,
the court had no alternative but to dismiss the bill. The two
absentees were essential parties.
Jurisdiction over parties is acquired only by a service of
process or their voluntary appearance. If an essential portion of
the defendants resided in another state, so that process could not
be served upon them, and they would not voluntarily appear, the
bill must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
This was a bill filed by Herndon, under the circumstances stated
in the opinion of the Court, and which was dismissed by the court
below.
The process against Davis was served upon Messrs. Dowd &
Murphy, his attorneys. A motion was made to dismiss the bill for
three reasons, the second of which was:
"Because Henry Davis is not a citizen of the Northern District
of Mississippi, and Dowd & Murphy are not his attorneys of
record in any of the courts of the United States, and have not
instituted proceedings or suit therein against said Herndon, but
are attorneys of record of said Davis, in the Circuit Court of
Monroe County, Mississippi, a state court, as per affidavit on
file."
The affidavit was as follows:
"In open court personally appeared Wm. F. Dowd, one of the firm
of Dowd & Murphy, who made oath that Dowd & Murphy are not
the attorneys of record of Henry Davis, and have not been, as such,
to institute any suit in this Court, or any one of the federal
courts of the United States, against Edward Herndon for the
recovery of the property mentioned in the bill filed in this cause,
but they, said Dowd & Murphy, are the attorneys of record of
Henry Davis to prosecute a suit against said Herndon, is a state
court, to-wit the Circuit Court of Monroe County, in the State of
Mississippi."
"W. F. DOWD"
The district court dismissed the bill, and Herndon appealed to
this Court.
Page 58 U. S. 425
MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiff complains that in 1849 he purchased from James C.
Ridgway a number of slaves, for whom he gave his bond to the
vendor; that this was transferred to E. T. Ridgway for the use of
Wm. H. Gasque, and that a suit is pending in the district court of
the United States for that district to collect the sum due; that
the slaves are in the possession of Wm. P. Givan, to whom he sold
them with a warranty of the title. That one Davis claims the slaves
under a title paramount to that derived from Ridgway, and had
brought a suit for them in the state court, which had proved
ineffective, and now threatens to renew it. The object of the bill
is to require the two Ridgways and Gasque, on the one part and
Davis on the other to interplead in the district court of the
United States to settle their right to the slaves so that he may
pay the purchase money to the proper person. He alleges that the
vendor, Ridgway, is insolvent.
The four defendants are citizens of Alabama. Notice of the
motion for injunction was served on the attorneys for the plaintiff
in the suit in the district court and upon the attorneys who
prosecuted the suit against Givan for Davis in the state court. The
attorneys for Davis disclaim any connection with him in this
controversy, and move to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction.
Gasque appears and demurs to the bill for the same cause, and no
notice or appearance exists in the record for the vendor, Ridgway.
The district court retained the bill twelve months and then
dismissed it on these motions.
The jurisdiction of the district court over parties is acquired
only by a service of process or their voluntary appearance. It has
no authority to issue process to another state. In the present
case, the absent defendants decline to appear, and process cannot
be served, so that the court is without any jurisdiction over the
essential parties to the bill. There was no course open to it
except to dismiss it for the want of jurisdiction upon the motions
submitted for that object.
Toland v.
Sprague, 12 Pet. 300.
There is no error in the record, and the decree is
Affirmed.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the district Court of the United States for the Northern
District of Mississippi, and was argued by counsel. On
consideration whereof it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed
by this Court that the decree of the said district court in this
cause be and the same is hereby affirmed with costs.