*1 Accordingly, Rehearing both cancer and To treat can- the Petitions for asbestosis. above, granted part, are as differently cer and outlined asbestosis would need- otherwise denied. lessly complicate settlement and defense We individual lawsuits. see no MERRITT, Judge, Circuit adheres to reason to create more difficulties for the position dissenting opinion. outlined in his parties already compli- than exist cated case.
II. companies advancing Those theory presented manifestation have no ar Henry HAILE, W. Receiver-Appellant, guments to us that did carefully we consider beforehand. We continue be to HENDERSON BANK, NATIONAL plain meaning lieve both the rule of Cleveland J. Betty construction requiring rule con Bridges, Defendants-Appellees. a policy struction of in favor insured No. 79-1296. support exposure theory. compa nies are correct that not all workers ex United States Court of Appeals, posed to asbestos fibers contract an asbestos Sixth Circuit. However, related disease. for the worker Argued Feb. 1981. asbestosis, who does bodily contract in Aug. 13, Decided jury first occurred when the worker first breathing started asbestos fibers. Rehearing Rehearing En Banc 25,1981. Sept.
Denied III.
Forty-Eight, generally while content decision, with our urged us to reconsid er our decision to allocate defense costs the
same as liability Forty-Eight costs. claims given we have an unduly narrow con
struction companies’ duty to the insurance
to defend.1 original position.
We adhere to our exposure theory provides a fair method of
allocating coverage. insurance This same
method can readily applied allocating defense costs as well liability as costs.
Where costs can readily apportioned, as
here, it is Forty-Eight reasonable to have pay its fair share of defense as costs well as
indemnification costs. Rehearing, ignores Forty-Eight presumption In its Petition for cites outlined footnote 21 example initially opinion exposure the situation where it is or our under which continued Forty-Eight’s products injured products Forty-Eight’s presumed believed that for insur- year Forty-Eight coverage purposes. only worker Forty-Eight in which had ance will coverage. Forty- pay indemnity insurance If it turns out that full if defense costs Eight’s products injured exposure Forty- strong a worker in a non-cov- there is evidence that year, Forty-Eight Eight’s products only place years ered claims that it will have took when pay defending Forty-Eight coverage. the full cost of the suit. This no had insurance *2 Martin, Haile, Henry
W. Haile & Nash- ville, Tenn., receiver-appellant. for Heacock, Jr., Lanier, John M. Shaver & Dance, Huntsville, Ala., Herring, Richard Nashville, Tenn., for Henderson Nat. Bank. Ward, III, George R. James S. Stuart Ala., Birmingham, Thom- Dauphin, Charles Huntsville, Ala., Jefferson, for de- as K. fendants-appellees. Betty Bridges, pro Bridges,
Cleveland J. se. MARTIN, WEICK, KEITH
Before Judges. Circuit WEICK, Judge. Circuit Haile, Apostolic W. Receiver of Henry Forever, Faith Church of Live God order of appellant, appealed for the the United District Court States dismissing cer- Middle District of Tennessee ancillary tain actions Betty Bridges and J. and Cleveland Bank for lack of the Henderson National personam jurisdiction. question The sole mini- presented is whether the for review analysis of mum contacts International Washington, v. State of Shoe (1945), and its 66 S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. applies ac- progeny properly proceedings brought by a federal tions and pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P. appointed receiver 754 and 1692. 66 and §§
I Apos- incorporation place Forever, Inc. Live Faith of God
tolic Church banks, dispute was a matter of Haile was Ap- some below. The receiver of Louisville, Church was ostolic and its assets. founded Ken- tucky, early sometime in the 1960’s. It was began investigate Apostolic, Haile As non-profit religious later chartered as a cor- it apparent became that the Church and its poration laws of the State of *3 writing officers had seen the on the walls as Kentucky. Barber, John W. self-ap- early begun as 1974 and had to transfer its pointed Church, of Bishop anwas itiner- corporations to newly-formed assets various evangelist. ant In the Church’s head- protect with the intent remaining its Alabama, quarters Decatur, were moved to pending judgments from assets and to de- incorporated and it was later in Colbert fraud creditors. Some transfers were made County, appointment Alabama. In the Church after the of the receiver. In 4, 1978, April obtained a certificate do its Memorandum of business in the dis- Georgia. of trict court found that: began period State This of growth expansion Revivals, Inc., and for the Church in Miracle Deliverance Thom- Hill, activity, though Inc., terms of Enterprises, Apos- not in terms as L. Barber of Apostolic Home membership. tolic Rescue and Faith Forever, Inc., Church of God Live began operate The Church acquire and corporation, egos Alabama are all alter of in Kentucky, Alabama, assets Georgia, H. Apostolic John Barber and Faith Florida, Michigan, Tennessee, Connecticut Forever, Inc., of Church God Live a Ken- (some undetermined) and in yet other as tucky corporation, and that all of these locales as well. The growth was the result corporations completely were so under of a fraudulent and mismanaged bond is- the dominion and control of W. John Bar- Barber, engineered by suance scheme Hen- only paper. ber as to exist on ry Atkeison, Boggs, (the Woodrow Jr. The court further that: found attorney), Church’s (a and L. Hill Thomas [bjased finding, on the above assets of officer). Church This fraudulent bond Hill, L. Thomas Miracle Deliverance Re- scheme resulted in the criminal conviction vivals, Inc., Enterprises, Barber and of Atkeison and debts owed to Wil- Home, Inc., Apostolic Faith Rescue are County liamson Bank and the Third Nation- properly subject receivership, to the be- al of Bank Nashville. These precipi- debts are, fact, they cause of assets Bar- receivership tated the litiga- and the instant Apostolic. ber and tion. commenting upon In of the conduct In the course of the wheeling Church’s prior subsequent both defendants and dealing, and the Third National Bank be- the institution of in the Middle came the holder of approximately $186,- Tennessee, District the court stated as 400.00 notes secured bonds in the face legal experience follows: “Never in the $186,250.00 amount Apostolic. issued spans years lawyer These notes by Apos- had been discounted judge, and has there ever been such a dis- tolic to the Corporation, Christian Credit fraud, play of evasion and deceit.” which in pledged turn had the notes and background The factual delineated above bonds as collateral for a loan at Third Na- presented is relevant issue herein tional Bank. The debt the Williamson only background in so far as it sets County Bank was undisputed. against ancillary proceedings which the September In and October of challenged appeal may per- on viewed separate two banks filed suits in the United spective. primary action in which States District Court for the Middle District Haile was receiver is not chal- Apostolic Tennessee to collect the lenged appeal. propriety on this 10, 1975, debts owed them. On December validity appointment of his are conceded. the two cases Judgment were consolidated. power It is the receiver and the banks, was entered in favor and on proceed- court in the 11, 1976, February request ings questioned. which is or shall hereafter become due and
II payable. receiv- equity Haile federal er ordered, inter alia: pursuant §§ 754 and to Fed.R.Civ.P. 1692,3the 66,1 itors It is further [******] defendants ORDERED are restrained all cred- 3. That until the further order 4. That possession and joined persons sets the receiver certified [******] Court the said John W. fendants possession prosecuting any actions which affect That trol; their Church of God authorized property said complete defendants, Apostolic Faith possession the said defendants and that holding property of the de- copy shall, Barber, receiver be of the receiver in any of said of forthwith to take any receiver be and upon Live and exclusive custody this and all all or under their real or of the defendants. way disturbing the Forever, Inc. and presentation of a defendants; persons order, and of all properties he personal, and from deliver hereby is and are en- control, the as- of this hereby con- any of in IT IS possession Apostolic encumbering, selling, removing, a. disposing God ber; ing or otherwise and b. affects properties in the hands That the *4 Church John except concert ants, or directly or officers, agents, attorneys transferring, destroying, FURTHER Live property W. prosecuting any action which Forever, of or participation of interferes Barber Faith defendants, Apostolic and terms of God Live receiver, indirectly: any books owned, ORDERED: those altering or disposing receiving, changing, Inc. servants, and their this order. are Forever, with the use of persons controlled or or John W. Bar- Faith enjoined of the receiver with employees, records any respective Church otherwise in active Inc. and defend- assign- assets them, from of of in any receive accounts, titles, authorized to and collect and other documents money owing and all of or papers any belonging sums of kind containing any in manner or information defendants defendants activities, except whatsoever, whether the same is now about defendants’ any capacity in provides: have to sue He shall 1. Fed.R.Civ.P. 66 may ancillary appointment be without by Appointed Receivers Federal Courts respect provided as in sec- thereto sued ap- An action been wherein a receiver has of this tion 959 title. by pointed except be dismissed or- shall not shall, days ten after Such receiver within practice of the in the adminis- der court. The copies entry appointment, file by by of order of of other tration estates receivers or complaint appoint- order of appointed and such similar officers the court shall practice in for each district ment district court be in accordance with the heretofore property file The failure to followed in States or is located. the courts United provided promulgated copies as in rules the dis- in district shall divest such respects trict courts. In all other the action of and control over all receiver appointment property in which the of a receiver is district. such in that sought brought by against or a which is or provides: governed § receiver is these rules. 3. 28 U.S.C. a in a district court where provides: 2. 28 U.S.C. real, appointed property, per- is receiver property Receivers of in different districts districts, mixed, or different sonal situated A receiver civil action or may and be executed issue real, property, proceeding involving wholly property lay district as if the such mixed, shall, or situated different districts district, affecting the orders within one but upon required by giving bond property of record in each shall be entered complete and control vested with districts. such right all such with the to take possession thereof. agents the defendants and their of Tennessee and a lack of effective service 9. No shall, books and records to the posed this Court. ants [*] upon [*] pending demand, [*] or sold, assets abandoned further orders of [*] surrender receiver; the defend- [*] or [*] said dis- 26, 1979, dum cites no cases in tain the court the action By process. Memorandum and Order of suit. did Significantly, support Bridges court dismissed of the dismiss- the Memoran- finding February enter- Acting pursuant al. The court as follows: to the court’s order of reasoned February accordance with 28 defendants are non-residents copies Haile filed certified They State of Tennessee. have no mini- complaint and order him re- Although mal state. contacts with this ceiver with the clerk of the United States action, transitory suit on the note is District Court for the Northern District of subjected per- defendants have not their February Alabama on Customarily sons to this court. a suit Bridges pastor involving Cleveland J. New is title to real estate local in Jerusalem Apostolic Faith Church in Deca- pos- nature. The receiver has not taken tur, Alabama. This is mother church of session of the real Defendant’s do estate. Apostolic Faith Church of Live God possession not attack the receiver’s Forever, Betty Inc. his wife ownership question. the note *5 Huntsville, are citizens and residents of Al- Upon analysis, 28 754 vests U.S.C. the § abama. Huntsville is located in the North- possession receiver with the and control ern District of On Alabama. or about Octo- of under debtor. But the 4,1974, Bridges ber the deliv- executed and facts of this case neither 28 U.S.C. § debtor, Barber, ered to the prom- John W. a 169[2], contrary nor 28 U.S.C. issory $3,800.00. note in the amount of The receiver, of grants contention the note was by mortgage secured a on real court of the defend- Huntsville, Alabama, located in property. ants nor their executed and delivered on to Barber or 1, 1976, On March Haile had filed suit about payments October 1974. A few Revivals, against Miracle Deliverance Inc. were made then Bridges and the defaulted alleging ego Apos- it alter of that was the on the note. to Pursuant his duties as and its were tolic that assets the assets of receiver, brought Haile on suit the note date, Apostolic. appointment On the that against Bridges August the on 1977 in Restraining Temporary a court issued Order appointment. the court of his Service was restraining the and debtors others from: attempted by United States Marshals on selling, directly indirectly assigning, or by several occasions but was evaded or pledging transferring, or Bridges. otherwise attempted by Service was also concealing, disposing dissipating any attachment of the real estate located in defendants, Upon Bridges’ Alabama. assets owned said or in failure to an- swer, judgment interest, default the defendants have was entered fa- vor belonging Apos- receiver on March as well as assets to 1978. Forever, tolic Faith Church of God Live April 5, 1978, On made a Inc., John Bishop and W. Barber a/k/a “special appearance” appointment in the John W. Barber. court for the purpose challenging above, court’s persons agreed over their or As noted with court its property.4 The basis of challenge their was receiver found Miracle Deliverance to a lack minimum corporation contacts the State pur- sham created for the “special appearance” validity process pursuant 4. We note that a chal- service of to lenge longer necessary 12(b). is no under Rule the Federal Rules. A defendant must attack entered cause The district court a show assets from pose shielding Apostolic’s 4, 1978) (Memorandum April Bank against creditors. the Henderson National order was Restraining A Order sent copy of February on 1979. National mail to the Henderson certified mo- National filed a The Henderson Bank Huntsville, on March Bank in Alabama As tion to on March dismiss in- alleged, grounds for dismissal bank 12, 1979, February the receiver filed On alia, improper was ter that venue for a Turnover Order Application 594; party that it was not a National Bank the Henderson appointed receiver was action which the Middle Dis- court in the there- had served with not been Tennessee, copy of which certified trict of 4; pursuant and that to Fed.R.Civ.P. Application Bank. was sent juris- did 754 and 1692 not confer U.S.C. §§ alleged that: diction. 2, 1976, an officer of the 5. On March Bank had a Henderson National tele- In a Memorandum and entered Order Alphonso conversation with phone 19, 1979, the district court dismissed March Beckles, attorneys one of the for the finding proceeding against bank
debtor, in which the two of them mu-
found
it
The court
that
lacked
tually agreed
liquidate two
certifi-
showing
bank
there was no
that
deposit
name of
cates of
in the
Mira-
had
contacts with the State
minimal
Revivals,
Deliverance
cle
Tennes-
Tennessee or the Middle District of
$29,500.00,
approximately
amount of
see,
was
close to
although the bank
located
interest,
these
plus
apply
pro-
the border between the two states.
liquidation
certain
*6
Henderson National Bank.
Even
which
all
where there are assets
locations
the
that
it
though
bank claims
was
receivership
where
belong to
estate and
the
exercising
right
its
to “set off” these
filed
appropriate papers
the
have been
against
of deposit
certificates
the
that
agreed
The court
provided in
persons,
notes of third
none of these
acquired
upon
appointment
his
the receiver
“satisfied,”
were
*7
(9th
den.,
Courts,
1978),
779
(3d
1976);
9 at
F.2d
Cir.
cert.
439
21
ed.
7-Pt. 2
U.S.
§
864,
188,
174;
Practice,
Federal
at
99 S.Ct.
58 L.Ed.2d
66.07[3],
Moore’s
1938
Data
1
(2d
Disc,
1980). Thus,
Associates,
Systems Technology
ed.
Inc. v.
District Court for
Inc.,
1977).
clearly
(9th
557
Middle District of Tennessee
has
F.2d 1280
Cir.
subject-matter
jurisdiction
ancillary
second determination involves
minimum
questions
instant consolidated cases. The
contacts test of
An
International Shoe.
view,
reject appellee
6. We ascribe to the
facts and
therefore
Henderson
National
case,
jurisdic
argument
properly
circumstances of this
that where
Bank’s
the suit was
ancillary,
post-jurisdictional
improper
tion is
consid
venue
dismissed since
was
under 12
See,
ancillary
eration
venue is
§
as well.
U.S.C.
Wright,
9,
p.
(3d
Law of Federal Courts
24
§
1976); Bator, Mishkin,
Wechsler,
Shapiro,
ed.
See,
Denckla,
235,
g.,
e.
v.
357
Hanson
U.S.
Hart and
1228,
Wechsler’s The Federal
Courts
(1958);
78 S.Ct.
The of whether service in ac- of territorial lim provided cordance with a on power respective manner in Rule itations was upon subject juris had either the Henderson Nation- states to nonresidents al Bank or the not was addressed diction of Accordingly, their courts. in by the opinions district court in its question dismiss- litigation Con- where provides pertinent part: held, may Fed.R.Civ.P. in district court is service be made (d) the circumstances and in the manner Summons: Personal Service. sum- prescribed order, by or, complaint the statute or if together. mons and there shall be served provision prescribing plaintiff person making no therein the man- shall furnish the service, copies necessary. ner of in service such a manner stated in as are this rule. Service shall be made as follows: Whenever a or statute rule court of the pro- state in which the district court is held summons, (1) vides for service of a (7) or a Upon a defendant of class referred to notice, or of an order in lieu of (1) (3) summons paragraph in or of this subdivision upon party rule, inhabitant of found or it is if also sufficient the summons state, (2) upon complaint within the or for service or pre- are served in the manner appear respond notice to him by any or de- scribed statute of the United or States fend in an prescribed action reason of the attachment in the manner law of state garnishment prop- or or similar seizure his which the district court is held for the state, erty located within service process service of summons or other like upon any either case made under the circumstances such defendant in an action prescribed brought and in the general manner the statute the courts of or that state. rule. (f) (e) Upon Party Same: Territorial Limits of Effective Service Service. Not Inhabit- subpoena may All ant of or than Found Within State. other Whenever a anywhere statute the United served within States an order of the territorial limits provides held, thereunder service of a the state which the district court is summons, notice, and, or of a or of an order when authorized a statute *9 upon rules, party by beyond lieu of summons not an inhabit- United States or these ant of or found within the state which the territorial limits of that state.
825
However,
na
Congress may provide for
service
provided for nationwide
gress has
e.,
process,
re-
i.
national
process
tional service
process, there is no due
by
justi-
personal jurisdiction
each
exercise of
of “minimal contacts”
quirement
presence of
based on
jurisdiction by federal
of the district courts
fy the exercise of
Practice,
States, rath
(2
Federal
in the United
Moore’s
the defendant
courts.
4-260)
any particular state. Robert
at
er than in
4.25[5]
11
Board,
Railroad Labor
268 U.S.
son v.
brought by a
a suit
may
It
well be that
619,
621,
(1925).
We find in Driver v. Helms Circuit directly to applicable be to the case at bar. respectfully majority opin- I dissent. The process The authorized 1692 is not Congress may require ion holds that a citi- “extra-territorial” but rather nationwide. jurisdiction zen to submit to of any the one process The to court’s extends of the 95 in federal district courts this coun- any judicial receivership district where try regard without to the whether citizen such, property is As the found. minimum previous has a particular had contact with analysis, contacts as a limitation on state holding, majority In the so simply power, inappo- extra-territorial is appellees concludes that be the sued in site.10 federal district in court Tennessee even process aspects The of service of though they never had contact process to instant case are be exam- with that State. ined under Mullane v. Central Hanover refusing apply to a “mini- Trust, Bank and 70 S.Ct. analysis mum contacts” to the facts of this (1950), 94 865 progeny L.Ed. and its rather ease, attempts distinguish Supreme the than under to International v. Shoe State of Washington, supra. The issue is one Court’s decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, fairness notice under the Fifth Amend- 326 S.Ct. is, question ment. That whether (1945). is the L.Ed. 95 first majority states reasonably service was calculated to inform that test “minimum contacts” was not pendency pro- defendants of the of the originally to intended restrict ceedings against they them in order persons court’s exercise over might advantage take opportunity of the to residing within the territorial boundaries of be heard in their defense.11 Mariash It United States. then concludes that Morrill, supra, 1142-1143, 496 F.2d at analysis International Shoe’s must be limit- 6-9; Helms, nn. Driver v. supra, 74 F.R.D. questions involving power ed to a state’s to 389-391, at 391 n. compel the appearance of non-resident de- Accordingly, the decision fendants before courts within the borders However, is reversed and the case remanded for of the state. more recent devel- opinion. consistent this opments recognize analy- the law that an majority today not, contrary test, five-part balancing adapted 10. The does to the sent’s dissent, 826-827, pp. characterization at Corp. Liquidating Corp., Oxford First v. PNC analysis conclude that the International Shoe F.Supp. 191, (E.D.Pa.1974), 203-4 includes merely questions involving must be limited to the minimum contacts test as its first consider- power compel appearance state’s of non- connection, ation. we find the reason- resident defendants before courts within the ing compelling: Second Circuit state, analysis borders or that question does principle . . . The “minimal contacts” does apply generally. to federal cases not, view, particularly in our seem relevant contrary, Quite minimum contacts evaluating constitutionality person- of in analysis properly applies to extraterritorial as- nationwide, am on based but not personal jurisdiction courts, sertions state extraterritorial, process. only service of It is sitting diversity, federal courts and in latter, quite simply, which even raises a other cases where a federal court must borrow question power forum’s assert con- long-arm acquire a state statute in order Morrill, trol over the defendant. Mariash v. jurisdiction over a non-resident de- (2nd 1974) (em- 496 F.2d analysis apply fendant. The will whether phasis original, omitted). footnote subject federal court’s matter question (28 1331) on based a federal U.S.C. § Since, above, as demonstrated service in the diversity (28 citizenship 1332). pro- instant case must made in manner only where, here, Congress provid- It is as vided in Rule if the district court determines process ed for nationwide service of on remand that service was manner, made such analysis inappo- International Shoe becomes then such service would meet site. imposed proper standard herein. If service point appear The real of difference would made, was not the receiver should afforded analysis, be whether the minimum contacts opportunity such, such obtain service. component applied should be as a 5th Amendment due test. The dis-
827
Shoe,
the decision in International
in International
Su-
sis similar to that used
ques
applied
must also be
in federal
preme
recognized
Shoe
has
that there
Court
Markets,
tion cases. Black v. Acme
a
process
be other due
limitations on federal
681,
1977);
(5th
Lone
564 F.2d
686 n.8
Cir.
personam jurisdiction.
court’s exercise of in
Package
v. Baltimore and Ohio
Car Co.
Star
However, the Court has not had occasion to
147,
1954);
Co.,
(5th
R.
212 F.2d
155
Cir.
Congress’ power
limits on
define the
Ry., 397
Fraley
Chesapeake
v.
and Ohio
to defend a federal
compel an individual
1,
(3d
1968);
F.2d
3
Oxford First Cor
federal forum.
In
question suit
a distant
Liquidating Corp., 372
poration v. PNC
Corp., the Court
Scophony
v.
United States
191,
v.
(E.D.Pa.1974);
F.Supp.
198
Getter
stated:
F.Supp. 559
Company,
Dickinson &
366
however,
suggests
government,
[T]he
(S.D.Iowa 1973).
also
v. Heit
See
Shaffer
that,
view
our recent decision in
2569,
ner,
186, 97
53 L.Ed.2d
433 U.S.
S.Ct.
Washington,
v.
International
Co.
Shoe
(1977);
Scophony
683
United
v.
States
154,
95],
310
90 L.Ed.
326 U.S.
S.Ct.
[66
n.13,
855,
795,
Corp.,
804
68 S.Ct.
with the
which was concerned
n.13,
(1948). But see
860
(1) the extent of the defendant’s contacts County, bank are located in Madison with place brought; where action was Bank Alabama. The has never conducted (2) the inconvenience defendant business in Tennessee. The certificates of having jurisdiction, to defend in a distant deposit at here issue were in exclusive taking into consideration the nature and possession prior appoint- bank extent and interstate character de- February 11, business, ment the receiver on fendant’s distance thereafter, including all times place defendant where action when (3) was brought; judicial ju- Haile was economy receiver of Miracle De- —the Revivals, diciary’s duplication needs to avoid of law liverance which was subse- equality suits and to ensure February treatment quent policy encouraging consolida The federal FOUNDATION, al., et brought by cannot LEGAL
tion
actions
a receiver
PACIFIC
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
tip
the balance
favor of
have had no contact
where the defendants
the federal
state which defines
ANDRUS,
al.,
B.
Cecil
et
simpli
Congress
attempted
district.
Defendants-Appellees.
fy
a receiver must follow
procedures
bankrupt
order to marshall
assets of
No. 79-1451.
any person
by allowing the receiver to sue
Appeals,
Court of
United States
bankrupt
allegedly holding
Sixth Circuit.
district of the
the federal
also
28 U.S.C.
1692. See
§§
court.
April
Argued
Bank,
v. Franklin National
United States
*13
Aug.
Decided
(2d
1975); Tcherepnin
Congress apparently concluded pro bankrupt’s property and charge of the would tecting the interests of the creditors if effectively a receiver more handled jurisdic greater court had a it is tional reach. While true that Sections policy of 754 and 1692 further the federal encouraging the efficient administration estate, I disposition bankrupt’s persuaded policy
am should be protections to eviscerate the allowed Amendment. process clause Fifth appellees had no contact Since the Tennessee, the Middle District of in the due principles fairness embodied pre- clause of the Fifth Amendment jurisdiction over the cause of action clude federal, whether state or Accordingly, affirm district. I would judgment dismissing district court juris- complaints
both for lack of diction. ceeds to notes rejected argument the receiver’s belief, court which, on information default, effectively ex- were not then in owed 28 U.S.C. 754 and §§ Apostolic members Faith the district pand geographical limits of Forever, Live Inc. to Church God receiver which the
Notes
notes
marked
and
all
assets of
possessory rights in
receive pay-
the bank continued to
Miracle
Apostolic
finding
that the
that
for
ments
several months.
ego Apostolic
alter
of
Deliverance was the
6. Henderson National Bank has refused
possessory right of
clearly
the
established
your
to surrender
to
receiver these
deposit.
of
the receiver to the certificates
proceeds
the
deposit
certificates
or
ruled, however,
the above
The court
that
thereof.
jurisdiction of
address
statutes do not
the
WHEREFORE,
prays
Receiver
Your
may
whom
be
person against
claims
requiring
an Order
the Henderson Na-
filed,
purport
nor
extend the
they
do
appear
why
Bank
cause
tional
and show
District
jurisdiction of the United States
it should not be ordered to turn over the
that the bank
Courts. The court concluded
proceeds
deposit
or the
certificates
territorial
was without
thereof,
$29,500.00
totalling
plus interest
court did
1975
Receiver.
court
that
therefore the
from June
to the
established,
any
may
provides:
or in
association
be
94§
12 U.S.C.
State,
municipal
county,
in the coun-
or
court
suits
Venue of
ty
city
is located
or
in which said association
any
proceedings against
Actions
associa-
having jurisdiction in
cases.
similar
chapter
had
tion under this
infra,
discussion,
6)
(see
note
district or Territorial
court of the United
within
States held
the district
in which such
822
remaining
personal jurisdiction.
not have
The court
are whether the court obtained
litigated
directed
suit
jurisdiction of
defendants-ap-
having
indeed,
United States District Court
territo-
and,
pellees
analysis
what
should be
Huntsville,
rial
Alabama.
applied
determining
question.
proceedings
suits and
applied
The district
court
standards
Bank
Henderson National
and the
of International Shoe v.
Wash-
State
appeal
were consolidated for
Order
ington, 326
66
90 L.Ed.
S.Ct.
April 30,
entered
attachment
(1945),
appellees
95
and ruled that
since
Bridges’
the real estate involved in the
suit
not have
did
sufficient minimum contacts
pending
was
appeal.
continued
Tennessee,
with the State of
the court could
follow,
For the reasons
we
personal jurisdiction
which
reverse
not exert
over them.
and remand for
not inconsist-
power
court
its
reasoned
terms of
opinion.
ent with this
jurisdictional power beyond
extend its
what
it viewed as
limits of
the territorial
its
Ill
will be
As
demonstrated be-
We begin
undisputed
low,
with the
however,
analysis
of International
7
proposition that
the initial suit which re
progeny
inapplicable
and its
Shoe
to the
sults in the
of the receiver is
at bar.
case
primary
action and that
suit which
brings
the receiver
the ap
thereafter
IY
pointment court
in order to
his
execute
always
ap
International
has
been
Shoe
duties is
main suit.6 As
courts,
plied
power
of state
and fed
such,
subject
the district
has ancillary
court
sitting
diversity,
eral courts
to extend
every
matter
such suit irre
process beyond
their
the borders of the
spective
diversity,
controversy
amount in
compel
presence
in order
state
other
normally
factor
would
analysis
developed
non-residents. The
jurisdiction. Pope
Louisville,
determine
v.
two-step approach
into a
where
Albany
Chicago
Co.,
New
Ry.
&
long-arm
first determines whether a state
(1899);
19 S.Ct.