BANK
OF
HELENA, ARK.,
V.
BATCHELDER EGG
CASE CO.
137
clerk's office at the instant the order of attachment was issued and placed in the sheriff's hands. Section 5083 of Mansfield's Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas provides that" the court must in every stage of the action disregard any error or defect in the proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party, and no judgment shall be reversed or affected by reason of such error or defect." Under this section, the irregularity, if any, in the clerk issuing the order of attachment after the complaint, bond, and affidavit were filed with him, but before he had placed them in his office, must be disregarded. There is another view proper to be considered, which is equally fatal to the defendant's con· tention. Leth be conceded that the order of attachment was placed in the hands of the sheriff prematurely on account of the complaint, davit, and bond not then being in the clerk's office, still these papers had all been duly executed and filed with the clerk, and were actually placed in the clerk's office a few minutes afterwards, and from that time tainly the order of attachment, and the service thereof, and the levy made thereunder, became effectul;LI and billding for all purposes against the defendant. and all others who acquired no rights' before the papers were thus filed in the clerk's office. SmaU v. McOhesney, 3 Cow. 19; Olute v. Olute. 3 Denio, 263;Olv,te v. Clute, 4 Denio, 241. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to grant a new trial.
HELENA. ARK.·
'0.
BATCHELDER
EGG
CASE
UO.
(Circuit Court of .AppeaI8, Eighth Circuit. July 5, 1892.) No. 74.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eaetern District , of Arkansas. Reversed. (h'eenjield Quarles, John I. Moore, John J. Hornor. E. C. Hornor, M. L. Stephenson, and J. Trieber. for plaintiff in error. James P. Clarke. for defendant in error.
Before CALDWELL and SANBORN. Circuit Judges, and SHlRAS, District Judge. CALDWELL. Circuit Judge. The record in this case is identical, save in the name of the plaintiff. with that in the case of People's lSav. Bank & Trust Co. v.Batchelder Egg Case Co., 51 Fed. Rep.130, (No. 76,) and was sub"llitted with that case upon a stipulation that it should abide the result in that case. The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
,;n
·FEDERAL REPORTER,
VOl,. . :EGG CASE CO.
BANK OF HELENA,
ARK.', 1'. BArhHELDER ·No.'75.
,
I, i,(Otrctltt Oourt of .Appedts; E1{]hth Circuit. . July 5, 1892.} l.1 .
in the Circuit Court ot the United States for the District . of Arkl\nsas;' Reversed.' (Jreenjleld Quarles, John' I. Moo1'e, John J. Hornor, E. O.Hornor, M. L. Stephenson, IUld J. TriebeT, for plaintiff in error. James P.Olarke, fm' defendaut in errOl'. Before CAU>WELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and SHIRAB, District JUdge. CALDWELL. Circuit Judge. The rp.cord in this case is identical. save in the name of the plaintiff, ,With that in the case of People's So,'O. Bank & Trust 00. 'If. Batchelder Egg 'Case 00., 51 Fed. Rep. 130, (No. 76.) and was submitted with that case upon, a stipulation that it should abide the result in that case..The judgment afthe court below is therefore revtlrsed, and the cause .,remanded tor a new trial. '
BROOKS f1. DUN
et al.
(Oircuit Oourt, W. D. Tennessee. June a,1892.) BBRVIOB OJ' PRocBss-NoNRBSIDENT PARTNERSHIP-SERVIOE ON AGENT.
I.,'
Mill. &!;V.Oode Tenn. 558516, 8539, which authorize of process on Bny agent or clerk wllere tile corporation, company, or individual has an office or agency in any county other than that in wpich the chief officer or principal resides, does not apply to a company other than a corporation or individual residing in another state or foreign country. If such substituted process be constitutional as to citizens of Tennessee' within the territorial limits of the state, it cannot be as to citizens of another state, and such a statute violates the fourteenth amendment of the consti. tution of the United States. and the service is not due process of law. .., :;," : ' ' , - , .;.
At Law. Thisis).1n.actionofdamages, brought by the plaintiff, a merchant at Memphis, in the., circuit,court of Shelby county, Tenn., the summons running against"R. G. Dun & Co., the 'mer<iantile agency;" and the return of the sheriff'shows that it was Uexecuted on S. Patterson, manager of R. G. Dun & Co., of the in N:emphis, Tennessee, by making known to him the contents" .thereof.: By the firstoount of his ,declaration, plaintiff avers ,a cause Jl,. G; Dun & .Co. and the mercantile ,of actiplil :.agency, being a partnership association doing business in the city of Tenn.," and' by the second count he "further sues defendant R. G. Dun & Co. as partners under the style of the 'Mercantile Agency."" At the return term, defendants by attorney "move to dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants, and for cause of such motion they say that the service of the summons was made on one S. Patterson, instead of having been made on the defendants, all of