The Northeastern Reporter (Volume 10)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1887. Excerpt: ... not give the court jurisdiction. Walling v. Beers, supra; Harkness v. Hyde, supra. The defendant's withdrawal of its appearance and plea by leave of court and consent of the plaintiff, replaced it in exactly the position it would have occupied had it never appeared or pleaded at all. See Michew v. McCoy, 3 Watts. & S. 501; Lodge v. State Bank, 6 Blackf. 557. Devens, J. The judgment sued upon having been recovered in one of the territories of the United States, it was competent for the defendant to show, notwithstanding any recitals in the record to the contrary, that the court in which it was rendered had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the controversy or the party defendant. Carleton v. Bickford, 13 Gray, 591. It is not contended that, apart from the instrument filed in the auditor's office of the territory, there could be service upon the defendant in that territory. The law of the territory required any insurance company doing business to appoint an attorney at law in each county where its agencies were established, and to file with the territorial auditor an instrument, duly signed and sealed, which should authorize such attorney to acknowledge service of legal process, and also consenting that any service of process on such attorney should be taken and held to be valid, as if served upon the company. On April 24,1884, the defendant, undertaking to comply with tins law, filed such an instrument, designating F. H. Kent & Co., whom it described as its agents at Albuquerque, upon whom process could be served. The firm of F. H. Kent & Co. consisted then of F. H. Kent and one Berks, neither of whom had been admitted to the bar as an attorney at law; but this cannot be important, as the defendant had adopted and treated them as its agents for the p...