FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   794   795   796   797   798   799   800   801   802   803   804   805   806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813   814   815   816   817   818  
819   820   821   822   823   824   825   826   827   828   829   830   831   832   833   834   835   836   837   838   839   840   841   842   843   >>   >|  
on; and while a judgment against a corporation in one State may validly bind a stockholder in another State to the extent of the par value of his holdings,[37] an administrator acting under a grant of administration in one State stands in no sort of relation of priority to an administrator of the same estate in another State.[38] But where a judgment of dismissal was entered in a federal court in an action against one of two joint tortfeasors, in a State in which such a judgment would constitute an estoppel in another action in the same State against the other tort-feasor, such judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit in an action brought against the other tortfeasor in another State.[39] SERVICE ON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS In 1856 the Court decided Lafayette Insurance Co. _v._ French et al.,[40] a pioneer case in its general class. Here it was held that "where a corporation chartered by the State of Indiana was allowed by a law of Ohio to transact business in the latter State upon the condition that service of process upon the agent of the corporation should be considered as service upon the corporation itself, a judgment obtained against the corporation by means of such process" ought to receive in Indiana the same faith and credit as it was entitled to in Ohio.[41] Later cases establish under both the Fourteenth Amendment and article IV, section 1, that the cause of action must have arisen within the State obtaining service in this way,[42] that service on an officer of a corporation, not its resident agent and not present in the State in an official capacity, will not confer jurisdiction over the corporation;[43] that the question whether the corporation was actually "doing business" in the State may be raised.[44] On the other hand, the fact that the business was interstate is no objection.[45] SERVICE ON OUT-OF-STATE OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES By analogy to the above cases, it has been held that a State may require nonresident owners of motor vehicles to designate an official within the State as an agent upon whom process may be served in any legal proceedings growing out of their operation of a motor vehicle within the State;[46] and while these cases arose under the Fourteenth Amendment alone, unquestionably a judgment validly obtained upon this species of service could be enforced upon the owner of a car through the courts of his home State. JUDGMENTS _IN REM_ In sustaining the challenge t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   794   795   796   797   798   799   800   801   802   803   804   805   806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813   814   815   816   817   818  
819   820   821   822   823   824   825   826   827   828   829   830   831   832   833   834   835   836   837   838   839   840   841   842   843   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

corporation

 

judgment

 
service
 

action

 

business

 

process

 

Amendment

 
entitled
 

SERVICE

 

obtained


Indiana

 

official

 

Fourteenth

 

credit

 
validly
 

administrator

 

courts

 

question

 

JUDGMENTS

 

enforced


raised

 

jurisdiction

 
officer
 
resident
 
arisen
 

obtaining

 
challenge
 

present

 
confer
 
sustaining

capacity
 

species

 
vehicle
 
vehicles
 

owners

 

require

 
nonresident
 
operation
 

served

 
growing

designate

 

objection

 

interstate

 

unquestionably

 

analogy

 

VEHICLES

 
OWNERS
 

proceedings

 
constitute
 

tortfeasors