Skip to content


National Accident Society Vs. Spiro - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number164 U.S. 281
AppellantNational Accident Society
RespondentSpiro
Excerpt:
national accident society v. spiro - 164 u.s. 281 (1896) u.s. supreme court national accident society v. spiro, 164 u.s. 281 (1896) national accident society v. spiro no. 460 submitted april 27, 1896 decided november 30, 1896 164 u.s. 281 certificate from the circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit syllabus a defendant, by filing a petition in a state court for removal of the cause to the united states court, in general terms, unaccompanied by a plea in abatement, and without specifying or restricting the purpose of his appearance, does not thereby waive objection to the jurisdiction of the court for want of sufficient service of the summons. the case is stated in the opinion. the chief justice: this.....
Judgment:
National Accident Society v. Spiro - 164 U.S. 281 (1896)
U.S. Supreme Court National Accident Society v. Spiro, 164 U.S. 281 (1896)

National Accident Society v. Spiro

No. 460

Submitted April 27, 1896

Decided November 30, 1896

164 U.S. 281

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

A defendant, by filing a petition in a state court for removal of the cause to the United States court, in general terms, unaccompanied by a plea in abatement, and without specifying or restricting the purpose of his appearance, does not thereby waive objection to the jurisdiction of the court for want of sufficient service of the summons.

The case is stated in the opinion.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is a certificate from the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit propounding, after a preliminary statement, the following question:

"Does a defendant, by filing a petition in a state court for removal of the cause to the United States court in general terms, unaccompanied by a plea in abatement, and without specifying or restricting the purpose of his appearance, thereby waive objection to the jurisdiction of the court for want of sufficient service of the summons?"

For the reasons given and on the authorities cited in the case of Wabash Western Railway v. Brow, ante, 164 U. S. 271 , the question must be answered in the negative.

Certificate accordingly.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER and MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM dissented.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //