112 FEDEKAIi EEPOBTER. ���Pacifio Eailroad V. Missouri Pacific Eailway Compant and others. �{Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. , 1880.) �1. J0BISDICTION — SuBPŒNAS— Service. — A suit to set aside a decree of �foieclosure and sale thereunder is not so far a mere cmitinuation of the original foreclosure suit as to authorize the seivice of subpœnas uponpersons without the territorial jurisdiction of the court. �2. Samb — 8amk — Samb — Solicitors. — ^The service of subpœnas on sollci- �tors and attorneys of persoQS before the court in the former suit is of no validity, until an application to the court has flrst been tnade, set- ting forth the circumstanoes whichTender such service proper, and an order obtained from the court directing that service be raade, and that such service, when made, should answer as a substitute for actual service on the parties so represented by the attorneys or solicitors. �Motion to vacate service of process. �Glover e Skepley, for complainant. �Melville C. Day, for defendants. �Miller, C. J., (orally.) The case in -which the motion is made that we are about to decide is a suit brought in the cir- cuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Mis- souri, to set aside a decree and sale of the Missouri Pacific Eailroad, made upon a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage upon that road. In addition to the Missouri Pacific Eailroad Company, and some pereons who were also parties in that Buit, the present bill makes parties of the purcliasera at the sale, and several other individuals who were not parties to the former suit. Some of these are not citizens or residents of the state of Missouri, and have not been found within the district. The subpœnas were issued, and, in some cases, services had on these persons in the state of New York, and in the state of New Jersey ; and service has also been made, without any previens authorization of the court, on the attor- neys and solicitors, in the former suit of some of the defend- ants iu the present suit. The motion is to vacate and set aside ail these services. �The argument, by which ît is endeavored to support the service of process upon persons vithout the district, is that ����
