Jurisdiction, how acquired.-A Federal court acquires jurisdiction over parties only by a service of process or by their voluntary appearance (Herndon v. Ridgway, 17 How. 424), and only by service of process within te district (Allen v. Blunt, 1 Batchf. 480; Union Sugar Refi. v. Matthiessen, 2 Cliff. 304), and not then if he is but temporarily within the district. (Smith v. Tuttle; 5 Biss. 159.) A person who comes within the district merely for the purpose of attending a trial in a State court cannot be served with process issuing out of a United States court (Juneau Bank v. McSpedan, 5 Biss. 64); and if served with summons while attending the trial of a cause in the circuit court as a party, the service will be set aside. (Parker v. Hotchkiss, 1 Wall. Jr. 267; contra, Blight V. Fisher, Peters C. C. 41.) Where defendant, not an inhabitant of the district, is inveigled or enticed into the district by false representations or deceptive contrivances, service of process on him within the district is illegal. (Steiger v. Bonn, 4 Fed. Rep. 17; Union Sugar Refi. v. Matthiessen, 2 Cliff. 304.) If a non-resident comes into the district for the purpose of pleading to an indictment and giving bail, he cannot be sued before he has a reasonable time to depart. (U. S. v. Bridgman, 8 Am. 1 aw Rec. 541.) If defendant is a non-resident of the district, the record must show with certainty that process was served upon him within the district. (Allen v. Blurt, 1 Blatchf. 480; Vore v. Fowler, 2 Bond, 294; McC.o: key v. Cobb, 2 Bond, 16; Thayer v. Wales, 5 kish. 448. See additional notes, p. 898.)

Waiver of irregularities.-A Federal court has no authority to issue process to another district. (Herndon v. Kidgway, 17 How. 424.) So the process of a circuit court cannot be served without the district in which it is established except by special authority of law. (Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456; Wilson v. Graham, 4 Wash. C. C. 53.) In proceedings for relief against an interfering patent under section four thousand nine hundred and eighteen, Revised Statutes, no provision is made for service of notice on parties outside of the district. (Liggett v. Miller, 1 Fed. Rep. 203; 1 McCrary, 31.) No judgment can be rendered

against a defendant who has not been served with process in the manner pointed out, unless the defendant waives the necessary process by entering his appearance. (Levy v. Fitzpatrick, 15 Peters, 1C7.) A party defendant may plead service of process on him out of the district by ple in abaten ent of the suit. (Van Antwerp v. Hulburd, 7 Batchf. 426.) Where a defendant appears without taking exceptions, it is an admission of the regularity of the service (Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699); but if he appears and answers the bill, he cannot on the hearing ol ject that the bill contained a prayer for process, or that he was not served. (Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11.) And if he appears and pleads on the merits, it is a waiver of irregularity. (Toland v. Sprague, 12 Feters, 300; Po.lard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 422; Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Peters,

293.)

Corporations.-A corporation can have no existence beyond the limits of the State in which it is created; hence service of process upon its officers in another State will not confer jurisdiction upon a circuit court in that State over the corporation. (Northern Ind. R. Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 15 How. 233; Day v. Newmark Manuf. Co. 1 Blatchf. 628; Decker v. New York B. & P. Co., 11 Blatchf. 76; Myers v. Dorr, 13 Batchf. 22.) As a corporation cannot be made a party to a civil suit by original process in any other district than the State wherein it was created (Myers v. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 23), so a national bank c nnot be sued out of the district in which it is locatel (Maine v. Sec nd Nat. Bank, 6 Biss. 26); but a trading corporation may be sed in any district in which it conducts its business (Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, 1 Fed. Rep. 93), and a foreign corporation may be sued in a district other than that of which it is a resident, if it has a duly authorized resident agent qualified to acknowledge service of process (Runkle v. Lamar Ins. Co., 2 ed. Rep. 9; Moch v. V. F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 693); or if it consents that process may be served on its agent in such State, jurisdiction attaches. (Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Knott v. Southern L. Ins. Co., 2 Wood 479; Ehrman v. Tentonia Ins. Co., 1 Fed. Rep. 479; Runkle v. Lamar Ins. Co., 2 Fed, Rep. 9; Fonda v. Pritish

Am. Ins. Co., 10 Chic. L. N. 309; Albright v. Empire Trans. Co., 18 Alb. L. J. 313; contra, Pomeroy v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 4 Blatchf. 120; Southern & A. T. R. Co. v. New Orleans M. & T. R. Co., 2 Cent. L. J. 88; Stillwell v. Empire F. Ins. Co., 4 Cent. L. J. 463.) A foreign corporation doing business within the State is liable to suit by service of process on an agent (Albright v. Empire Trans. Co., 18 Alb. L. J. 313; see Browne I v. T. & B. R. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 761; 18 Blatchf. 243; Moch v. V. F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 696; 4 Hughes, 61); although there is no State law requiring it to appoint an agent to accept service of process. (Wilson Pack. Co. v. Hun er, 11 Chic. L. N. 207.) Corporations may be found for service of process wherever they are doing busines. (Wilson Packing Co. v. Hunter, 8 Cent. L. J. 333); Rairoad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65; Ex parte Schol.enberger, 95 U. S. 369; Moulin v. Ins. Co., I Du'ch. 57; Moch v. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 696; Wheeling e c. Trans. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 1 Cin. Rep. 311; Hannibal etc. R. Co. v. Crane, 102 Ill. 249; Handy v. Ins. Co., 37 Ohio St. 366; 2 Ohio Law J. 289; McNichol v. U. S. Mercantile Association, 14 Cent. L. J. 51; Williams v. Empire Trans. Co., 14 O. G. 523.)

A personal privilege and may be waived.—This section is not a denial of jurisdiction, but the grant of a privilege to defendant not to be sued out of the State where he resides, unless served with process in the State where suit is brought (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489); and under its provisions the privilege granted to him may be waived (Flanders v. Ætna Is. Co., 3 Mason, 158; see Lovejoy v. Hartford F. Ius. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 63), as by a voluntary appearance (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489; Hale v. Contin. Ins. Co., 12 Fed. Rep. 359); and his appearance without process is a waiver of the privilege to object to the non-service of process. (Gracie v. Palmer, 8 Wheat. 699; Seegee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11; Kelsey v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 14 Blatchf. 89; McCloskey v. Cobb, 2 Bond, 16; Flanders v. Ætra Ins. Co. 3 Mason, 158; Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 499; Clarke v. Navigation Co., 1 Story, 531.) Sappearing and moving to dismiss the bill for want of equity

(Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327), or an appearance unac companied by a plea claiming the privilege, is a waiver of it. (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489.) For an appearance to confer jurisdiction, the party must be a party to the record. (Kentucky S. M. Co. v. Day, 2 S wy. 468.) If a party is a non-resident he may appear in the suit and p'ead his personal privilege (Teese v. Phelps, 1 McAll. 17), and such an appearance is not a waiver (Harrison v. Rowan, Peters C. C. 489); but it is not a waiver to appear and plead to the jurisdiction by an attorney. (Commercial Bank v. Slocomb, 14 Peters, 60; Thayer v. Wales, 5 Fish. 448; Decker v. New York B. & P. Co., 11 Blatchf. 76.) Where a bill was filed in the southern district of Mississippi against four defendants, two of whom appeared for the purpose of moving to dismiss the bill and the other two declined to appear and process was not served on them, the court had no alternative but to dismiss the bill, they being necessary parties. (Herndon v. Ridgway, 17 How. 424.)

Process by attachment.-An attachment against the property of a non-resident cannot be sued out, unless the defendant is first personally served with process. (Ex parte Des Moines R. R. Co., 2 Morr. Trans. 303.) The circuit court has no jurisdiction in attachment suits against a non-resident without the district. (Hollingsworth v. Adams, 2 Dall. 398; Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. 208; Day v. Newark Manuf. Co., 1 Blatchf. 628: Sadler v. Hudson, 2 Curt. 6; Mauldin v. Carll, 3 Hughes, 247; Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35; Richmond v. Dreyfous, 1 Sum. 131.) Process of foreign attachment cannot be properly issued by the circuit court in cases where defendant is domiciled abroad or not found within the district, where it can be served upon him (Toland v. Sprague, 12 Peters, 300; Anderson v. Shaffer, 10 Fed. Rep. 266), and this applies to corporations. (Mey. ers v. Dorr, 12 Blatchf. 22.) Process of attachment on the effects of a person not an inhabitant cannot be served (Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch, 424); but if served not only on the property but on the defendant, jurisdiction attaches. (North v. McDonald, 1 Biss. 57.) An a signee appointed by a bankrupt court of another district is within the rule,

although there is property within the district. (Shainwald v. Lewis, 5 Fed. Rep. 510; S. C. 6 Sawy. 585.) Where a citizen of the United States is a resident in a foreign country, the circuit court has no jurisdiction over a suit brought by an alien, although he has property within the district which may be attached. (Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35.)

Civil suit." Civil suit" means a suit within the category of "all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity," and a cause of admiralty jurisdiction is not within the meaning of this prohibition. (Atkins v. Disintegrating Co., 18 Wall. 272; Casey v. Leary, 2 Ben. 530; Manchester v. Hotchkiss, 13 Int. Rev. Rec. 125; but see Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456; Wilson v. Pierce, 15 Law Rep. 137; New England Ins. Co. v. Navigation Co., 13 Int. Rev. Rec. 94.) This provision does not apply to a person who has never been an inhabitant of the United States. (Cushing v. Laird, 4 Ben. 70.) A prize proceeding is a civil suit, and if against the person, can be instituted only in the district where he is inhabitant or is found. (Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456. Attachment will lie against in debt or contract or tort. Grath v. Candalero, Bee, 64; Bouysson v. Miller, Bee, 186.) It may be issued against a non-resident in an action on contract, even if the non-resident be a corporation. (Clarke v. Navigation Co., 1 Story, 531.)

(Mc

§ 27 (746). Causes not discontinued by new term.—When the trial or hearing of any cause, civil or criminal, in a circuit or district court, has been commenced and is in progress before a jury or the court, it shall not be staid or discontinued by the arrival of the time fixed by law for another session of said court; and the court may proceed therein and bring it to a conclusion, in the same manner and with the same effect as if another stated term of the court had not intervened. (Rev. Stats., sec. 746.)

The trial is in progress although the jury is not complete, where some of the jury have been sworn. (U. S. v. Loughery, 13 Blatchf. 267.)