TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Rhoades

UNITED STATES v. RHOADES (ALLEN, Third-Party Defendant)

United States v. Rhoades, 14 F.R.D. 373 (D. Colo. 1953)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, D. Colorado · Federal District Courts
Decided
July 3, 1953
Docket
No. 4185
Judges
Knous
Citations
14 F.R.D. 3731953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3860

Opinion of the Court — Knous

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

KNOUS, District Judge.

The original defendant herein as third-party plaintiff has requested an order authorizing service of summons on the third-party defendant in the County of Lake in the State of Indiana.

Such application asse'rtedly is based upon Section 206 of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1896, which in certain circumstances permits the service of summons on an original defendant in an action brought thereunder in any district wherein defendant resides or transacts business or wherein defendant may be found. However, no mentiorb whatsoever is made in the Act concerning/ the service of process ■ on third-party defendants. J

Since no service outside a state can lawfully be authorized unless the situ *374 ation clearly is within the terms of a Federal statute, the Court is of the opinion that the provisions of Section 206, supra, properly may not be expanded by construction to include an order for service on a third-party defendant.

As read by the Court, the decisions cited by applicant offer no support to her contention. United States v. Rockhill, D.C., 9 F.R.D., 696, 697 , has to do with questions of service on an original defendant; Creedon v. Wilson, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 488 , pertains to the propriety of joinder of parties plaintiff, and Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Co., etc., 273 U.S. 359 , 47 S.Ct. 400 , 71 L.Ed. 684 , relates to a question of venue under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 22 .

Accordingly, defendant’s request for an order for service as prayed for is denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 11964: 11968: 119572026peak 1957 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Schwartz v. Bowman156 F. Supp. 361 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)
  2. Lyons v. Marrud, Inc.8 A.L.R. Fed. 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
  3. Trussell v. United Underwriters, Ltd.236 F. Supp. 801 (D. Colo. 1964)

Most recent

  1. Lyons v. Marrud, Inc.8 A.L.R. Fed. 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
  2. Trussell v. United Underwriters, Ltd.236 F. Supp. 801 (D. Colo. 1964)
  3. Schwartz v. Bowman156 F. Supp. 361 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co., 273 U.S. 359 (1927) 738
Creedon v. Wilson, 10 F.R.D. 488 (E.D. Pa. 1948) 3
United States v. Rockhill, 9 F.R.D. 696 (D. Or. 1950) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list