lJNITED :STATES .".
,Ill
sary part of the mine, considered as an entirety, the coal-cars were material fon·the iwprpvement, within statqte. T.1l,e intervenor should have judgment recognizing its lien as prayed for. The master's report should be reformed and amended so as to conform to the views herein expressed, and, as so amended, should be approved and con,firmedj' aha. an' order to that' effect will be entered; " ,. . ," .
UNITED STATES 11. BOtJLIGNY, (Circuit 'H'l1SBAND
E, D. ,PROPERTY·
1890.)
:1>
.A. wife having inhel'ite<!money, and the community being indebted to bel', her payment lIuch (Jebt, conveyed certJlin land to her. This land was afterwaHls "exchanged for ,another piece ,of lalld, title to which was made to the hushand,thougha.fterwardshushand and wife, and the person w1th Whom the,excl1-an,;te hllod. ):leen in a notarial act, that the, trm,1sfer .'Xall illtended to have been to t,he wlfe, and that the land transferred exchanged for 'her, parapb.ernal.estate., "Held" that the land belonged-to'the community, aad' was tp the husband.
F. L. Richardson, for intervenor and Mrs,. Judi(fe, tbirdopponent. Wm. Grant, U. S. Atty. ".' ", ..
J. The, facts,. as follows: The, third opponent claims the which on thar it is phernal The eVIdence shows thatslle qad mherlted money; th,at th,ecdinmuhity was indebted to her; and that, inpaymentofher debt"the to hera piece ,oheal property.' This, property sqe1in doortridc#on'wiih her husbaIid;exchanged {or al,l{)ther piece, which is the property'seized berein. In the cClllveyance through whic4 the, exchl1nge was effected the title to the land seized was made to the husband alone. Subsequently the third opponent and and the party with whom the exchange had been made, united in a notarial act, declaring that the transfer of the piece of property seized herein was intended to have been to tbe wife, and that it was exchanged for her paraphernal property. Upon these facts, the real estate in question belongs to the community, and is subject to the writ against the husband. Comeau v. Fontenot, 19 La. 406; PfJrcyv. Percy, 9 La. Ann.l85. The general principle of our law is that, if a purchase be made by the husband in his own name, the property, though bought with the wife's funds, belongs to the community, and the price or value constitutes a legal debt in her favor against the community. Seel Hen. Dig. tit. "Marriage," XIII. (b,) 2. par. 10, (p. 883.) The two cases referred to above show that this principle applies and controls in case of an exchange. There must be judgment against the third opponent, and in favor of plaintiff, without prejudice to her right to claim a lien and privilege upon the proceeds arising from the sale of the property.
I'EDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 42. OF
GOilDEN
v.
THE MORNING
N:mws
NEW
HAVEN.'
(OirauU Oourt, E. D. New York.
March 81, 1890.)
WRITe-SERVIOB Olr PROOESS-FOREIGN CORPORA.TIONS-JURISJ)IOTION,OIr STA.TE COURT.
lnan action by a resident of New York against a foreign corporation, which does not,do business, or have office, agent, or property within the state of New York, servo ice ofproooss upon an officer of sucb corporation, while temporarily within this state, does not confer jurisdiction upon the state court from WhlCh process issued,
At Law. On motion to vacate service of process. Plaintiff is a resident of the' eastern district York. Defendant is a Connecticut corporation. The action is for libel, the alleged libelous article having been published in defendant's newspaper. The defendant does not do business here, nor has it either office, or property ,within- this state. Summons and complaint, entitled" In the Supreme Oourtio the County of Kings," served upon Henry W. Farnam, the president of defendant, while temporarily within the state of New .Yor:lr.. Defllndant. petition of removal, and now , set aside service of the summons. The appearances, both in t.he state court and here, were special, and' expressed to be for the sale purpose of ra,ising the objection nOW advanced. :It{;L. rPoi.v1l.s, for plaintiff. ;"': H. B. B. Stapler, for defendant.
'It has this circuit that ser\'ice such as this I J. not confer jurisdiction state court to. render a personal ju:dgment against the defendant, .and .that such judgm.ent, had the case removed, Would be treat'ed in this court as void. Good. Hope . J1ailway Barb &ncing. 00.,22 Fed. Rep. 635. 'fhat deoisi?D. detenhines the question raised hEire. Jv.[otion to vacate service of the prot is granted. .
LA<JJMBE
cess
lRepOrted by Edward G. Benediot, Esq;, of the New York bar.
i.