![James Nations and Joseph Nations, Plaintiffs in Error v. Nancy Ann Johnson and James Johnson](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![James Nations and Joseph Nations, Plaintiffs in Error v. Nancy Ann Johnson and James Johnson](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
James Nations and Joseph Nations, Plaintiffs in Error v. Nancy Ann Johnson and James Johnson
65 U.S. 195, 1860.SCT.0000015
-
- 0,99 €
-
- 0,99 €
Publisher Description
Mr. Paschal commenced his argument by stating it as a general principle, that a judgment obtained by publication and without personal service cannot be the foundation of an action in another State, nor, indeed, in the State where the suit is brought; that all suits are either in personam or in rem; that when in personam, there must be personal service to give jurisdiction; when in rem, the remedy is exhausted when the res is disposed of. Amongst other authorities, he cited 3 Howard, 336, and 11 Howard, 437. He then considered the effect of the statute of Mississippi, which he said did not change the principle. When the suit was dismissed, it was a final judgment, a discharge of the defendants, who had no longer a day in court. A writ of error is an original writ. 2 Tidd's Practice, 1134.