Summary

Edward Douglass White Chase v. Wetzlar — Opinion of the Court

We say this because, while questions concerning the sufficiency or verity of averments as to citizenship or amount in dispute assail the jurisdiction of the court, they do not address themselves to the want of all foundation for judicial action because of an entire absence of elements which are essential to the existence of any jurisdiction whatever,-that is, the presence of persons or property within the jurisdiction of the court, over which its authority may be exerted.
Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White Chase v. Wetzlar — Opinion of the Court

In other words the power conferred rests upon a real, not an imaginary, base. This being true, we are of opinion that a Federal court has not jurisdiction over a person not within its territorial jurisdiction, or over property in the custody of such person, not within such territorial jurisdiction, merely because a state court may, as to such person and such property, because of some proceeding pending before it, have the authority to treat both the persons and property as constructively present and subject to its jurisdiction.
Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White Chase v. Wetzlar — Opinion of the Court

The decree sought is only a determination of the rights of complainant against the estate of Gustave J. Wetzlar, deceased. This estate is, in the eye of the law, within the county of New York, where any and all suits pertaining to the distribution of the estate, and to accounting therefor, must be brought. Respondent cannot, certainly by setting up an absolutely illegal act (removing the property to Germany) , be heard to deny that, within the contemplation of law, the estate is, for the purposes of distribution, within the county of New York.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature