Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/406

 Z2e FEDERAL REPORTER, �Blaib V. TuRTLB aud another. �{Circuit Court, D. Nehraska. , 1881.) �1. BuMMONS— Sbbvicb PjjocmiED THBotJGH Fbatjd. �Wliere a person has been brought from another slate by force, or has beea induced to corne into a state by the fraud and deceit ol another for the purpose of procuring the service of a summons in a civil action) and Personal service has been made under such circumstances, the serv- ice of proccss and return of the oificer will be quashed on proper plea, where the facts are undisputed. �Action for False Imprisonmeni Demurer to special plea. �Hunter d Sawyer and Brown, England e Brown^ for plaintiff. �Lamb, Billingsly e Lambertson, for defendants. �DuNDT, D. J. On the twenty-fif th of October, 1876, the plain- tiff, John H. Blair, commenced his action against the defend- ants, William Turtle and Jesse H. Bull, in the district court of Lancaster county, of the second judicial district of the state of Nebraska. Security for costs of suit was given, whereupon a summons was issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff of the said county for service. The return of the sherifi shows that he made personal service of the summons on both of the said defendants. The summons required the defendants to appear and plead to the petition by the twenty-seventh of November following the date thereof. �The petition seems to show, or at least it is therein alleged, that in the year 1875 the defendants wrongfiilly and unlaw- fuUy detained and impriaoned the plaintiff in the common jail of Lancaster county; on the raih'oad cars running on a railroad extending from Lincoln, Nebraska, to Saint Louis, Missouri; at Saint Louis, Missouri; on, railroad cars between Saint Louis and New York oity; on board an ocean steamer plying betweenNew York oity and Liverpool, England; and also in England after the plaintiff had there arrived, — for. which wrongfpL and unlawful detention and imprisonment the plaintiff claims damages in the sum of $25,000. �Nothing further seems to have been done in the case, at least so far as the pleadings were concerned, until the twen- ����