CITIZENS, BANK v. mzooxs. 23
The plaintiff relies upon this to sustain the allegation of the repli-
cation that he knew of the suit, and of the employment and appear-
ance of the attorneys in it, and ratihed their doings, and paid them ·
for their services. The substance of the replication is that he volun-
tarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court, and that the
cause was thereupon tried.
If he was heard there upon the trial he has no right to be heard
again upon the questions involved except upon appeal, but is bound.
That he had notice of the suit, however full and formal, out ofthe
jurisdiction would not bind him. He could not be compelled to ap-
pear by anything done without the jurisdiction. Bischoj v. Wethered,
9 Wall. 812. Therefore taking his deposition would not bind him.
The other party had the right to take it in order to obtain a judg-
ment to bind the property attached, but he could not be made a party
personally in that manner; if he could, the jurisdiction of courts could
be extended without their territorial limits by merely resorting to that
proceeding.
_ The suit was founded upon an alleged liability of the Adams bank,
a state bank of Kansas, of which the defendant and Simonds men- .
tioned in the telegram and others were stockholders, to the plaintiff,
and a statute of Kansas making stockholders personally liable on
the dissolution of the corporation. The statute also provided for con-
tribution between stockholders when any were made to pay. Comp.
Laws Kan. 233, § 44. The defendant testifies that he understood
that there was litigation going on in Kansas in respect to the liability
of the Adams bank to the plaintiff, but not that it was against him per-
sonally, and that some of the other stockholders were defending it,
and that the telegram referred to that litigation; and he testifies that
the money which he sent was contributed by other stockholders resid-
ing near him as well as himself, and sent to one of those whom he
· understood to be defending to aid in paying the attorneys, and not to
the attorneys as his attorneys. No one is called to contradict this
testimony, and there is nothing opposed to its correctness unless the
circumstances contradict it. _
From the circumstances it is apparent enough that the other stock-
holders, or some of them, employed the attorneys to appear and de-
fend this case on account of their interest in the result; and from
his testimony, that he did not know that his personal liability was
being passed upon, although he knew that what might affect him ul-
timately was involved. Although he knew of, and was willing to and
did contribute to, the common defense, he does not appear to have
in any way ratified or confirmed the submission of his personal lia-
bility to the judgment of the court. As the plaintiff had, and was
entitled to, no proceedings to compel his personal appearance, it
could not be had without he knowingly and voluntarily yielded it,
and he could not ratify the assumption of others to appear and sub-
mit his case for him without knowledge of what they had assumed