Lamb v. Schmitt, Receiver
285 U.S. 222 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The general immunity from service of process for non-resident attorneys, parties, and witnesses attending court does not apply when the new suit is ancillary to and in aid of the principal litigation, as the court's need to administer justice in the main case outweighs the policy of encouraging voluntary attendance.
Facts:
- A lawsuit was filed in Mississippi to set aside conveyances of property alleged to be in fraud of judgment creditors (the 'principal suit').
- Lamb, an attorney residing in Illinois, represented one of the defendants in this principal suit.
- While the principal suit was ongoing, Lamb received payment for his legal fees from the funds that were the subject matter of that same suit.
- A receiver was appointed by the court in the principal suit to manage the disputed property and funds.
- Lamb traveled from Illinois to the Northern District of Mississippi to attend court proceedings related to the principal suit.
- While in Mississippi for the principal suit, Lamb was served with process for a new lawsuit.
- This new suit was filed by the receiver to recover the funds that Lamb had been paid as attorney's fees.
Procedural Posture:
- The receiver (Schmitt) filed suit against Lamb in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
- Lamb filed a motion to quash the service of process, asserting immunity as a non-resident attorney in attendance on the court.
- The District Court (trial court) granted the motion and quashed the service.
- The receiver appealed the District Court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the order of the District Court, holding that Lamb was not immune from service.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a non-resident attorney, present in a jurisdiction to represent a client in a pending lawsuit, immune from service of process for a second, ancillary lawsuit brought to aid the proceedings and secure the subject matter of the first?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stone
No. A non-resident attorney is not immune from service of process when the second suit is ancillary to and in aid of the first. The immunity privilege is founded on the convenience of the court and the due administration of justice, not the convenience of individuals. The purpose is to prevent interference with a pending case and encourage voluntary attendance. This privilege should only be extended or withheld as judicial necessities require. In this instance, the second suit is not an unrelated action but is so much a part and continuation of the first that it is considered ancillary. Granting immunity to the petitioner would paralyze the court's ability to secure the subject matter of the primary litigation and defeat the ends of justice in the very cause the immunity is meant to protect. Therefore, where the second action is brought in aid of the first, judicial necessity requires that the immunity be withheld.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant 'ancillary proceeding' exception to the traditional rule of immunity from service for non-resident attorneys and parties. It shifts the analysis from a categorical rule to a functional one, weighing the policy of encouraging attendance against the court's need to effectively administer justice. By subordinating the individual's immunity to the 'judicial necessities' of the pending case, the Court ensures that the privilege cannot be used as a shield to frustrate the very litigation it is designed to protect. This precedent limits the scope of the immunity defense and empowers courts to maintain control over all related aspects of a case, even when it requires serving individuals who would otherwise be exempt.
Unlock the full brief for Lamb v. Schmitt, Receiver