Riley, v. Ritz.riley, v. Bull et al, 198 F.2d 82 (D.C. Cir. 1952)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 198 F.2d 82 (D.C. Cir. 1952) Argued April 23, 1952. Decided May 29, 1952

Miss 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.