Page images
[blocks in formation]

Company, as provided for in the act aforesaid.” The plaintiff asked for judgment for $13,348.

The summons was directed to “the Southern Railway Company, through Hon. John T. Michel, Secretary of State of Louisiana, New Orleans," and required the defendant to answer within ten days after service. The Deputy Sheriff on December 3, 1904, made return that he had served the citation and petition “on the within named Southern Railway Co. in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, by personal service on E. J. McGivney, Ass't Sec'y of State, Jno. T. Michel, Sec’y of State being absent at the time of service.” The Assistant Secretary of State, acting under the instructions of the Attorney General, filed the citation and petition in his office.

No notice, however, was given to the Southern Railway of the service of the citation or of the fact that suit had been brought. It therefore made no appearance in the suit brought against it by Simon, and, on January 10, 1905, the court, on motion of the plaintiff, ordered that judgment by default be entered against the Railway Company. Under the Louisiana practice, the case was thereafter submitted to a "trial by jury on confirmation of default.” The plaintiff himself testified and other witnesses were examined and on January 16 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $13,348—being the exact amount claimed in the petition. On January 20 the court considering “the verdict of the jury in this matter, and that the demand of the plaintiff was proved, and the law and the evidence being in favor of said plaintiff” entered judgment on the verdict.

Thereafter the Company learned of the existence of the judgment and averring itself to be a citizen of Virginia, filed (February 6, 1905) in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana a bill against Simon, a citizen of Louisiana, asking that he be perpetually enjoined from enforcing the same.

[blocks in formation]

The Bill attached, as an Exhibit, a copy of the record in the state court and alleged that, in the collision referred to, Simon had received injuries which a surgeon had reported were slight; that the Company had offered him $350 in settlement. Simon refused to accept this sum but considered and discussed the acceptance of $750, which, however, was not agreed to by the defendant; the matter was temporarily left in abeyance, it being understood that negotiations were still pending and would probably result in an agreement of settlement. It was alleged that thereafter the plaintiff surreptitiously and without the knowledge of the Railway Company entered suit for $13,348, "falsely and fraudulently pretending that he had been injured in that sum”; that Simon's personal injuries were slight as shown by the report of the surgeon; that the claim for loss of profit on stock and the extra cost of manufacturing stock were claims that he well knew were fraudulent, fictitious and utterly untrue; but by false testimony he secured a verdict therefor.

The bill further alleged that the Southern Railway was not doing business in the State of Louisiana; that the service upon the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of State was not a citation upon the Railway Company and was null and void for the purpose of bringing it under the jurisdiction of the Civil District Court; that any judgment rendered upon such attempted “citation would be, if rendered without appearance of the defendant, a judgment without due process of law, and consequently, in violation of the Constitution;" that the Railway Company had never received the citation issued in the suit, nor was it advised, nor had it any knowledge of the pendency of said proceedings until after the rendition of the judg

that the verdict of the jury having been rendered upon false testimony and without notice, it would be against good conscience to allow the judgment thereon to be enforced against the Railway Company, which has


Statement of the Case.

236 U. S.

no remedy at law in the premises and has a complete meritorious defense to the claim on which the judgment is based; that by fraud and accident, unmixed with its own negligence, the Railway Company has been prevented from making such defense.

As stated in Ex parte Simon, 208 U. S. 144, on another branch of this case, 'The bill further alleges that Simon will attempt to collect the fraudulent judgment by fieri facias, and prays as specific relief an injunction against his further proceeding under the same. A preliminary injunction was issued, after a hearing on affidavits, on June 30, 1905, and Simon appears to have obeyed the order for over two years.

A demurrer to the bill was overruled in December, 1906, and a plea to the jurisdiction, filed in February, 1907, was overruled in the following May. Simon answered in August and issue was joined in the same month. Notwithstanding the injunction Simon, in contempt therefor, obtained a writ of fieri facias and directed a levy and the service of garnishment process to collect the judgment.

The punishment was a small fine, and the imprisonment was ordered until the fine was paid.'

In habeas corpus proceedings instituted in this court he sought to be discharged from the sentence of imprisonment imposed in the contempt case, claiming that, under Revised Statutes 720, the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to grant the injunction and therefore the order in the contempt proceedings was absolutely void. The writ was denied.

After this court refused to grant the writ of habeas corpus the case, on the main bill, was referred to a Master to hear evidence and to report his conclusions of law and facts. He found that the Railway was not doing business in Louisiana in the sense of the statute; that the judgment was not fraudulent, but held it to be void because service upon the Assistant Secretary of State was not

[blocks in formation]

the "service upon the Secretary of State” required by the statute.

The Circuit Court did not consider the question of fraud, but held (184 Fed. Rep. 959) that the state judgment was void because the Louisiana statute providing for service on foreign corporations was unconstitutional. It thereupon entered a permanent injunction against Simon as prayed for in the bill. From that decree Simon appealed making many assignments of error, attacking the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the bill and especially denying its power to grant the relief prayed for in view of the provisions of § 720 of the Revised Statutes. The Circuit Court of Appeals held (195 Fed. Rep. 56) that it had been authoritatively decided in Ex parte Simon, 208 U. S. 144, that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction. It found that the Railway Company was doing business in New Orleans; but ruled that Act 54 did not provide for service on the Assistant Secretary of State and hence that the judgment by default in the state court was void for want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The decree of the Circuit Court was affirmed and thereupon Simon prosecuted the present appeal.

Mr. Henry L. Lazarus, with whom Mr. Herman Michel, Mr. Eldon S. Lazarus, Mr. David Sessler and Mr. Girault Farrar were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. J. Blanc Monroe, with whom Mr. Monte M. Lemann and Mr. Alfred P. Thom were on the brief, for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The primary question whether the United States court had jurisdiction of the case must of course be determined by considering the allegations of the Bill. It shows

[blocks in formation]

diversity of citizenship and charges that Simon was seeking to enforce by levy a judgment obtained by fraud and without notice to the Railway Company. If that be so the United States courts, by virtue of their general equity powers, had jurisdiction to enjoin the plaintiff from enforcing a judgment thus doubly void. For even where there has been process and service, if the court "finds that the parties have been guilty of fraud in obtaining a judgment

it will deprive them of the benefit of it." McDaniel v. Traylor, 196 U. S. 415, 423. Much more so will equity enjoin parties from enforcing those obtained without service. For in such a case the person named as defendant “can no more be regarded as a party than any other member of the community.” Such judgments are not erroneous and not voidable but upon principles of natural justice, and under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, are absolutely void. They constitute no justification to a plaintiff who if concerned in executing such judgments is considered in law as a mere trespasser. Harris v. Hardeman, 14 How. 339 (default judgment entered on improper service). Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 541; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 46; Western Indemnity Co. v. Rupp, 235 U. S. 273.

On principle and authority, therefore, a judgment, obtained in a suit of which the defendant had no notice, was a nullity and the party against whom it was obtained was entitled to relief. It serves to illustrate the existence of appellee's right and the method of its enforcement to note that under the law of Louisiana the Railway Company was not obliged to attack a void judgment in the court that rendered it—but, in a court having jurisdiction of the plaintiff's person, could have instituted a new and independent proceeding to enjoin Simon from enforcing it. See Sheriff v. Judge, 46 La. Ann. 29, where a suit was brought in the 21st District Court to enjoin the enforcement of a void judgment obtained in the 17th District

« PreviousContinue »