Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DUNN v. PRINTING CORP. OF AMERICA

September 3, 1965

Howard M. DUNN, Plaintiff,
v.
PRINTING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, and Periodical Press Corp., Hughes Printing Co., Business Press, Inc., Science Press, Inc., Hughes Realty Investment Corp., Trade Press, Inc. and Publishers Printing-Rogers Kellogg Corporation, Garnishees



The opinion of the court was delivered by: BODY

 This is an action for damages for breach of contract brought by plaintiff, Howard M. Dunn, a resident of Pennsylvania, against defendant, Printing Corporation of America, a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York City. Thus jurisdiction of the Court is based on diversity of citizenship.

 Defendant has not registered to do business in Pennsylvania although it is alleged that defendant does considerable business in Pennsylvania including the maintenance of an accounting department at Third and Hunting Park Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Since the principal events out of which this cause of action arose occurred in New York, plaintiff attempted to effect service on defendant by proceeding under the 1963 amendment to Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that:

 
"Whenever a statute or rule of court of the state in which the district court is held provides * * * (2) for service upon or notice to * * * [defendant] to appear and respond or defend in an action by reason of the attachment or garnishment or similar seizure of his property located within the state [in which the district court is held], service may * * * be made under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed in the statute or rule."

 The state rules made applicable to this case by the aforestated Federal Rule are Rules 1251 through 1279 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, 12 P.S. Appendix, dealing with writs of foreign attachment. Acting under these Pennsylvania rules, plaintiff served writs of foreign attachment on the seven garnishees in the following manner:

 
1. Periodical Press Corporation ("Periodical") is located in and was served in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania;
 
2. Trade Press, Inc. ("Trade") is located in and was served in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania;
 
3. Business Press, Inc. ("Business") is located in and was served in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania;
 
4. Science Press, Inc. ("Science") is located in and was served in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania;
 
5. Hughes Realty Investment Corporation ("Hughes Realty") is located in and was served in Monroe County, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania (28 U.S.C. § 118(b));
 
6. Hughes Printing Company ("Hughes Printing") is located in and was served in Monroe County, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania (28 U.S.C. § 118(b)); and
 
7. Publishers Printing-Rogers Kellogg Corporation ("Publishers"), a company not named in the complaint or original writ of foreign attachment, is located in Long Island City, New York, in the Eastern District of New York (28 U.S.C. § 112(c)). Service was purportedly made on its assistant secretary, Richard S. Field ("Field") in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

 On the basis of the foregoing facts, a motion was made by defendant, Printing Corporation of America, and the seven garnishees for an order, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, vacating the writ of foreign attachment served on the garnishees and dismissing the action as to the defendant and garnishees. In order for this Court to properly dispose of the above motion it must first resolve several issues which will be examined in turn.

 I.

 Whether Property Belonging to Defendant Held by Five Garnishees Lies Beyond the Jurisdiction of This Court to Attach

 Prior to 1963 an action commenced by attachment or garnishment in a state court could be removed to a federal court if the ordinary conditions for removal were satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1450; Rorick v. Devon Syndicate, Ltd., 307 U.S. 299, 59 S. Ct. 877, 83 L. Ed. 1303 (1939). However, these quasi in rem actions could not be initiated in a federal court. This historical anomaly [Currie, Attachment and Garnishment in the Federal Courts, 59 Mich.L.Rev. 337 (1961)] was remedied by the 1963 amendment to Rule 4(e) which permits the commencement of such actions in a federal court.

 The specific state rule made applicable by Rule 4(e) in this case is Rule 1254(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure which stipulates that:

 
"An attachment of personal property of the defendant may be issued in and only ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.