Martin

Martin v. Burford

Good Law
100 C.C.A. 159·176 F. 554·3 Alaska Fed. 437·1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4281
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 7, 1910No. 1,712California693 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Morrow, J.

The defendants in error have appeared specially and interposed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and *438 on the further ground that the court is without jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants in error George C. Bur-ford, Jules B. Caro, and Charles -E. Hooker, or the partnership doing business under the firm name and style of J. B. Caro & Co., for the reason that the citation issued there was never served on George C. Burford, or Jules B. Caro, or Charles E. Hooker, or the partnership of J. B. Caro & Co. The plaintiff in error was the plaintiff in the court below, and the judgment appealed from was in favor of all the defendants in error. We assume that the motion was intended to be a motion to dismiss the writ of error, and will treat it as such. The writ of error was sued out in due time after the entry of the judgment, and was returned and docketed in this court, together with an authenticated transcript of the record and the assignment of errors, with the prayer for reversal of the judgment, as provided by law. The court has therefore acquired jurisdiction of the case upon the writ of error, and the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.