Adzenoska v. Erie R. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 February 1914
• Docket Number: 535.
• Parties: ADZENOSKA et al. v. ERIE R. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

210 F. 571

ADZENOSKA et al. v. ERIE R. CO.

No. 535.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

February 6, 1914

C. B Little, of Scranton, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Warren Knapp, O'Malley & Hill, of Scranton, Pa., for defendant.

WITMER District Judge.

Plaintiffs' right to sue the defendant within this jurisdiction is challenged on rule to dismiss. Plaintiffs are aliens and subjects of the Czar of Russia. The defendant, the Erie Railroad Company, is a corporation of the state of New York. Though defendant, through its agents, is carrying on its business in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, it is well settled that its domicile, habitat, and citizenship is in the state by which it was incorporated. The matter presented raises the question whether alien plaintiffs may maintain their action in a jurisdiction other than the residence or habitat of the defendant.

The jurisdiction of the United States District court is fixed by the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1911, c. 231, Sec. 51, U.S Stat. at Large, vol. 36, p. 1087 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 150); Federal Statutes Annotated, Supplement 1912, vol. 1, p. 153, wherein it is provided:

'Except as provided in the five succeeding sections, no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action before a District Court; and, except as provided in the six succeeding sections, no civil suit shall be brought in any District Court against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.'

It is evident from the language employed that a person, whether he be natural person or a corporation, can be sued only in the court of the district whereof he is an inhabitant, unless the sole ground of jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship of states, in which event the plaintiff may elect to bring his action either in his own district or that of the defendant. The last clause is by way of proviso to the next preceding clause, which restricts the jurisdiction to the defendant's resident district, and it (the proviso) extends the right of the plaintiff to sue under certain circumstances in the district of his own residence when both of the parties plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states. The purpose of this proviso is to afford the plaintiff the same advantage of litigation in his own district that the defendant has, if he can there obtain...