be returnable in term, unless otherwise ordered upon motion or petition to the court; and it seems that it might be returnable the same day as it was sealed.10 The time when a subpoena shall be returnable in the various states is largely regulated by rule or statute.11

§ 123. Form of subpoena.

[In the federal courts:]

United States of America.

In the Circuit Court of the United States,

Circuit,

District of

In Equity.

The President of the United States of America, to R. S., V. W., and X. Y., Greeting:

day of

You are hereby commanded that you be and appear in said circuit court of the United States aforesaid, at the court room in —on the A. D. 19—, to answer a bill of complaint exhibited against you in said court by A. B., who is a citizen of the state of —, and to do and receive what the said court shall have considered in that behalf; and this you are not to omit, under the penalty of five thousand dollars.

day of

Witness the Honorable Melville W. Fuller, chief justice of the supreme court of the United States, this in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and and of our independence the

[Seal.]

L. M.,

Clerk.

Memorandum pursuant to Rule 12, Supreme Court, U. S.-You are hereby commanded to enter your appearance in the above suit on or before the first Monday of next, at the clerk's office of said court, pursuant to said bill; otherwise, the said bill will be taken pro con fesso.

§ 124. Service of process.

L. M.,
Clerk.12

The sheriff, as the ministerial officer of the court, is usually the proper officer to execute the service of process issued from

of A. B. and C. D., his father and mother." 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 49; Eley v. Broughton, 2 Sim. & S. 188.

91 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 103, 104; Gilbert, Forum Rom. 38.

101 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 104; Hinde, Pr. 80.

111 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 103.

Equity Rule 12.

See Rev. St. Ill. c. 22, § 9; United States

12 An alias subpoena is practically the same as the above, save that

the court, provided he is not an interested party, or otherwise disqualified.13 When he is disqualified, the coroner is usually the proper officer to serve such process. The statutes, or rules of court, of the respective jurisdictions, generally provide by whom process shall be served, and should be consulted, when the occasion arises.14

It is a well-established rule that the process of a court cannot run beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court issuing it.15 The service of a subpoena upon a defendant out of the state is irregular, and ineffective as personal service.18 Service may be made on any day, save those excepted at common law and by statute.17 Service on Sunday is usually held to be void.18 It seems that service on a return day before 12 o'clock at night will be valid, as the legal day does not close till that hour.19 A summons served after the return day does not give the court

after the words, "you are hereby," are inserted the words, "as you have heretofore been." See 4 Desty, Fed. Proc. (9th Ed.) 654-657. For form of writ of summons in Virginia, see 4 Minor, Inst. Com. & St. Law (2d Ed.) 1231 (1115). For form of subpoena in Michigan, see Michigan Chancery Rule 122. For form of subpoena under English chancery practice, see 1 Harrison, Ch. Pr. 296; Barton, Suit in Eq. 62; Mitford & T. Pl. & Pr. in Eq. 500.

13 Bacon Abr. tit. "Sheriff” (m) 1.

14 United States Equity Rule 15 provides for service by the marshal or his deputy, or by some other person specially appointed by the court for that purpose, and not otherwise. In the latter case the person serving the process shall make affidavit thereof.

15 United States v. American Lumber Co., 85 Fed. 827; Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476.

161 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 51; Dunn v. Dunn, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 425; Cree v. Byrne, 1 Hogan, 79; Pratt v. Bank of Windsor, Har. (Mich.) 254. 17 Stone's Case, 129 Mass. 156.

181 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 104; Mackreth v. Nicholson, 19 Ves. 367; State v. Ricketts, 74 N. C. 193. The statutes and decisions of the particular jurisdiction, for the effect of service of process on Sunday and legal holidays, should be consulted when occasion demands. See, for Sunday service, Hastings v. Columbus, 42 Ohio St. 585; Scammon v. City of Chicago, 40 Ill. 146.

191 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 104; Maud v. Barnard, 2 Burrow, 812; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 51. For consideration of this question, see 1 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 104; Gilbert, Forum Rom. 42.

jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, for the reason that the writ, after the return day, ceases to be of any force or effect.20

§ 125. Service on persons under disability.

In the absence of statute or rule of court, a subpoena against husband and wife must be served on the husband, who is bound to have her appearance entered; but if the proceedings are against her separate estate, she must be personally served.21

If an infant is made a defendant, the subpoena must be served apon him personally, in the same manner as upon adults; but it is recommended, in such cases, to accompany such service with notice to the parent or guardian of the infant, or some competent person of the family, of the nature of the writ, and of the necessity for the infant's having a guardian appointed to appear and defend his interests.22 Service upon the father or mother has been held good in England, though it is, in strictness, proper to have an order to that effect.23

A lunatic, like an infant, is served personally, and it should be in the presence of some competent person, or with notice to his committee.24 It is said that, after inquisition, actual service on an insane person may be dispensed with as a prerequisite

20 Draper v. Draper, 59 Ill. 119; Lofland v. Jefferson, 4 Har. (Del.) 303; Crews v. Garland, 2 Munf. (Va.) 491; Blodgett v. Town of Brattleboro, 28 Vt. 695; Ferguson v. Ross, 5 Ark. 517.

211 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 106; Jones v. Harris, 3 Ves. 488; Ferguson v. Smith, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 139; Piggott v. Snell, 59 Ill. 108. For practice in the federal courts, see O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150.

22 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 51; 1 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 106. For service on infants, see Garnum v. Marshal, 1 Dickens, 77; Baker v. Holmes, 1 Dickens, 18; Massie's Heirs v. Donaldson, 8 Ohio, 377; Campbell v. Campbell, 63 Ill. 462; Taylor v. Lovering, 171 Mass. 303, 50 N. E. 612. For practice in Tennessee, see Britain v. Cowen, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 315; Gibson, Suit in Ch. § 233, note, cited in Beach, Mod. Eq. Pr. § 176.

231 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 107; Thompson v. Jones, 8 Ves. 141; Smith v. Marshall, 2 Atk. 70.

24 1 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 108; 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 52; Ferguson v. Smith, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 139. See, for service on insane persons, Taylor v. Lovering, 171 Mass. 303, 50 N. E. 612.

to the appointment of a guardian ad litem, where it is shown that the service would be dangerous to the health of the lunatic. 25

§ 126. Service on corporations.

A subpoena, in case of a corporation, is usually served on the president, treasurer, secretary, or other principal officer.26 The statutes of the respective jurisdictions usually specify the persons upon whom such process may be served, and such statutes should be consulted when the occasion arises.27

25 Speak v. Metcalf, 2 Tenn. Ch. 214; Taylor v. Lovering, 171 Mass. 303, 50 N. E. 612. In Beach, Mod. Eq. Pr. § 175, it is said: "Such service is mere form, and may be dispensed with when shown to be dangerous to the lunatic;" citing Shaw v. Burney, 36 N. C. 150. See, also, Sullivan v. Andoe, 6 Fed. 641; Snowden v. Dunlavey, 11 Pa. 522; Stigers v. Brent, 50 Md. 214, 33 Am. Rep. 317.

261 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 52; 1 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 108.

27 See Talladega Ins. Co. v. Woodward, 44 Ala. 287; Illinois Steel Co. v. San Antonio & G. S. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. 561; Lewis' Adm'r v. Glenn, 84 Va. 947, 6 S. E. 866. See supra, § 15. In Dinzy v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 61 Fed. 49, it is said: "In the absence of a statute, the question whether the relation of the servant to the corporation is such that service upon the former is notice to the latter is frequently one of difficulty, as the common-law rule is that the service must be had upon some officer whose knowledge can be deemed to be the knowledge of the corporation. Hence we find that the subject is now generally regulated by statutory enactments in the several states." See, also, Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. (U. S.) 404. The service of a copy of the writ upon an agent of a foreign corporation is not sufficient to give jurisdiction to the state court to render personal judgment against it, unless it appears in the record that the corporation is engaged in business in the state, and the agent is appointed to act there. St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350; Moulin v. Trenton Mut. Life & Fire Ins. Co., 24 N. J. Law, 234; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. (U. S.) 407; United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 29 Fed. 17. For service upon foreign corporations, see Doe v. Springfield Boiler & Mfg. Co., 104 Fed. 684, citing many authorities; Abbeville Electric Light & Power Co. v. Western Electrical Supply Co., 61 S. C. 361, 39 S. E. 559; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Roller, 100 Fed. 738. 49 L. R. A. 77; Henrietta Mining & Milling Co. v. Johnson, 173 U. S. 221: In re La Bourgogne, 79 Law T. (N. S.) 331.

§ 127. Service on prisoner.

It is not irregular to serve a subpoena personally upon a defendant who is imprisoned in the state prison for a term of years, on a conviction for a crime;28 and service upon a keeper of a prison will be ordered to be good service upon a prisoner in his custody.29

§ 128. Mode of service.

The mode of service is usually regulated by statute or rule of court. The English order was that the subpoena was to be served personally, or left at the defendant's dwelling house or place of residence, with one of the family.30 An hotel where one is temporarily sojourning is held not to be his place of abode.31

The statutory regulations for service of process must be strictly complied with, or there will be no jurisdiction.32

§ 129. Extraordinary or substituted service.

The court will, under special circumstances, order other modes of service to be deemed good in the particular case. As

28 Phelps v. Phelps, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 150.

29 1 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 51; 1 Hoffinan, Ch. Pr. 109; Joyce v. Joyce, 1 Hogan, 121. See, also, Johnson v. Johnson, Walk. (Mich.) 309.

30 1 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 105; 1 Harrison, Ch. Pr. 300; Birdwood v. Hart, 3 Price, 176; Beames, Orders Ch. 169. United States Equity Rule 13 provides that the service of all subpoenas shall be by a dělivery of a copy thereof, by the officer serving the same, to the defendant personally, or by leaving a copy thereof at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of each defendant, with some adult person who is a member or resident in the family. Rev. St. Ill. c. 22, § 11, provides that service of summons shall be made by delivering a copy thereof to the defendant, or leaving such copy at his usual place of abode, with some person of the family of the age of ten years or upwards, and informing such person of the contents thereof. See Boyland v. Boyland, 18 Ill. 551; Kingman & Co. v. Mann, 36 Ill. App. 338; Greenman v. Harvey, 53 Ill. 386; Wilhite v. Pearce, 47 Ill. 413.

31 White v. Primm, 36 Ill. 416.

82 Greenwood v. Murphy, 131 Ill. 604, 23 N. E. 421; Cost v. Rose, 17 Ill. 276; Piggott v. Snell, 59 Ill. 106; Settlemier v. Sullivan, 97 U. S. 444. In a territorial court the practice in chancery as to serving process and notice of suit is regulated by the law of the territory, and not by the equity rules of the United States courts. Palmer v. Cowdrey, 2 Colo. 1.