Riley, v. Ritz.riley, v. Bull et al, 198 F.2d 82 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
Annotate this CaseMiss Mary M. Riley, pro se.
Mr. Lewis A. Carroll, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U.S. [91 U.S.App.D.C. 63] Atty., and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U.S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees.
Before CLARK, PRETTYMAN and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm. Our affirmance as to defendants Peach, Hoffman and Bull is because jurisdiction was not obtained over them. They were not personally served within this jurisdiction, they did not submit to the jurisdiction of the court, and it does not appear that they are inhabitants of the District. Our affirmance as to defendant Ritz rests upon the authority of DeArnaud v. Ainsworth, 1904, 24 App.D.C. 167, 5 L.R.A., N.S., 163, dismissed per curiam, 1905, 199 U.S. 616, 26 S. Ct. 743, 50 L. Ed. 335; Farr v. Valentine, 1912, 38 App.D.C. 413; Smith v. O'Brien, 1937, 66 App.D.C. 387, 88 F.2d 769, and United States to Use of Parravicino v. Brunswick, 1934, 63 App.D.C. 65, 69 F.2d 383. See, also, Glass v. Ickes, 1940, 73 App.D.C. 3, 117 F.2d 273, 132 A.L.R. 1328, certiorari denied, 1940, 311 U.S. 718, 61 S. Ct. 441, 85 L. Ed. 468.
Affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
