Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Corporation
Decision Date | 30 July 1945 |
Citation | 62 F. Supp. 291 |
Parties | GILBERT v. GULF OIL CORPORATION. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Max J. Gwertzman, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Matthew S. Gibson, of New York City (Archie D. Gray, of Houston, Tex., and Fred J. Locker, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
Plaintiff sues the defendant in tort claiming that through the defendant's negligence in delivering gasoline at plaintiff's warehouse, located at Lynchburg, Virginia, the warehouse took fire and was destroyed with most of its contents. The complaint alleges four claims or causes of action. Plaintiff seeks damages in the first cause of action in the sum of $41,899.10 for the destruction of plaintiff's warehouse; in the second, $3,602.40 for damages to plaintiff's merchandise and fixtures; in the third, $300,000 for damages to the property of plaintiff's customers whose goods were in plaintiff's custody and control; and in the fourth, $20,038.17 for loss of the use of the warehouse, loss of profits and for expenditures in attempting to salvage customer's property.
Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Lynchburg, Virginia, where the warehouse was located and the goods were stored. The majority of his customers were residents of that section of Virginia. The defendant corporation is a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, but through a certificate filed with the New York Secretary of State was authorized to do business within the State of New York and is actually doing business here in the Borough of Manhattan. Defendant, in like manner, is legally authorized to do business in the State of Virginia.
The gasoline which was being delivered at the plaintiff's warehouse at the time of the fire, had been ordered in the State of Virginia, and the delivery was being made by a distributor, Jennings-Watts Oil Co., Inc., also a resident of the State of Virginia, doing business in the City of Lynchburg. The fire took place March 8, 1944. The complaint was filed in this Federal Court on May 15, 1945.
The defendant has moved, through an order to show cause, for an order dismissing the complaint filed herein:
I have concluded that the venue of the action is not improper for any technical reason, but that for good and sufficient reasons hereinafter stated this Court in the exercise of its discretion should decline to assume jurisdiction of this action.
The plaintiff, in opposing the defendant's motion, states that on March 8, 1944, the date when the explosion and fire took place, the plaintiff had purchased from the Gulf Oil Corporation 251 gallons of gasoline and the plaintiff annexes to an opposing affidavit a copy of the invoice. The invoice is important, but on this motion it aids the defendant rather than the plaintiff. It shows that the contract for the purchase of the gasoline was made and performed at Lynchburg in the State of Virginia.
Plaintiff states that the driver of the delivery wagon was in the office of the warehouse at the time of the explosion and was waiting for a delivery receipt for the gasoline to be signed by plaintiff; that plaintiff and his office manager, Mr. Judd, and various other employees of the plaintiff were in the warehouse; and that in plaintiff's opinion "no independent outside witness could be found who knew anything whatsoever regarding the delivery of the gasoline and the explosion and fire which took place." Plaintiff's affidavits also state that various engineers were brought from New York for the purpose of examining the premises and investigating the origin of the fire and the explosion; that plaintiff engaged the services of an appraiser, who does not reside in Lynchburg, Virginia, but resides in the State of North Carolina, to examine the damage to the goods of plaintiff's customers. Plaintiff also asserts that a great many of the customers who had property in his warehouse and who sustained losses by reason of the explosion and fire, do not at the present time reside in Lynchburg, and that if their testimony is necessary it will have to be taken in various localities where they are now residing. In conclusion the plaintiff states that he "is prepared to bring all the employees who were present and have any knowledge of the origin of the fire and the explosion to appear as witnesses at the trial which has been brought in New York."
The attorney for the plaintiff has also filed an opposing affidavit herein, to which he has annexed a certificate from the Secretary of the State of New York showing that the defendant, when authorized to do business within the State of New York, designated the Secretary of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert
...non conveniens is good or bad, I should wait for Congress to adopt it. Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE joins in this opinion. 1 Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Corp., D.C., 62 F.Supp. 291. 2 Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Corp., 2 Cir., 153 F.2d 883. 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 112, 28 U.S.C.A. § 112; Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuil......
-
Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co.
...district court, relying on Weiss v. Routh, 149 F.2d 193 (2d Cir. 1945), held New York law to apply and dismissed the action. 62 F.Supp. 291, 294 (S.D.N.Y.1945). The Court of Appeals distinguished Weiss, held that federal law controlled, and reversed the trial judge for abuse of discretion. ......
-
Gore v. U.S. Steel Corp.
... ... The defendant United States Steel Corporation is incorporated in New Jersey but does business throughout the country. One of its branches, known ... Co., 330 U.S. 518, 527, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067, 1076 (1947); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055, 1062 (1947). Its origins are ... ...
-
Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 167.
...found the venue proper, but accepted the view that the court should refuse jurisdiction, citing and relying on New York state precedents. 62 F.Supp. 291. This appeal is prosecuted from the resulting dismissal of the The District Court is clearly correct in holding venue proper. Since it app......
-
Forum Non Conveniens and the "flat" Globe
...See e.g., Gardner supra note 33; Davies supra note 12, at 313.70. Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 501.71. Id. at 502.72. Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Corp., 62 F. Supp. 291 (S.D.N.Y 1945).73. See, e.g., Dahl v. United Technologies Corp., 632 F.2d 1027, 1029 (Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980); In re Volkswagen of America,......