Anderson v. Penncraft Tool Company
| Decision Date | 18 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 61 C 1307.,61 C 1307. |
| Parties | Morris R. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. PENNCRAFT TOOL COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Greenfield, Levin & Greenfield, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Hough, Young & Coale, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
This is a personal injury action here on removal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. The jurisdictional requirements of diversity and dollar amount are pleaded. Defendant now appears specially and moves to quash the service of summons on it in the State Court action effected under the authority of Sections 16 and 17 of the Illinois Civil Practice Act (chapter 110, Ill.Rev.Stat. §§ 16, 17).
Since the jurisdiction of a federal court on removal is a derivative jurisdiction, Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 1922, 258 U.S. 377, 382, 42 S.Ct. 349, 66 L.Ed. 671, if the State Court lacked jurisdiction of the defendant, this Court acquired none on removal. Freeman v. Bee Machine Co., Inc., 1943, 319 U.S. 448, 449, 63 S.Ct. 1146, 87 L.Ed. 1509. Therefore, an inquiry into the sufficiency of service of process prior to removal is proper. Garden Homes v. Mason, 1 Cir.1956, 238 F. 2d 651, 653.
Defendant's principal contention is that service was invalid because no tortious act had been committed by it within Illinois. This argument, however, was carefully considered and rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court in a remarkably similar recent decision, Gray v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corporation et al., 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (rehearing denied September 20, 1961), which supersedes the various earlier decisions cited in defendant's brief. This Court is, of course, bound by the latest applicable decision of the Illinois Supreme Court on the subject. Rockwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., D.C.M.D.Pa., 1955, 137 F.Supp. 317.
In the Gray case, as alleged here, plaintiff was injured by an instrumentality manufactured and sold outside the state by a company whose only contact with Illinois in the transaction was the presence of its product at the occurrence of the accident. There, as here, defendant's affidavit stated that it did no business in Illinois, and that it had no agent physically present within the state.
Notwithstanding, the Illinois Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to quash service of summons, reversing the lower court ruling. It held that the term "tortious act" as used in Section 17(1) (b) of the Illinois...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chovan v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Company
...to jurisdiction. See L. Hand in Kilpatrick v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 166 F.2d 788, 791 (C.A.2d 1948). 4Accord: Anderson v. Penncraft Tool Co., 200 F.Supp. 145 (N.D.Ill.1961); McMahon v. Boeing Airplane Co., 199 F. Supp. 908 (N.D.Ill.1961); Hutchinson v. Boyd & Sons Press Sales, 188 F.Supp. 876......
-
Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corporation, 21334.
...1963, 25 Conn.Supp. 17, 195 A.2d 766; Keckler v. Brookwood Country Club, N.D., Ill., 1965, 248 F. Supp. 645; Anderson v. Penncraft Tool Co., N.D., Ill., 1961, 200 F.Supp. 145; McMahon v. Boeing Airplane Co., N.D., Ill., 1961, 199 F.Supp. 908; Tice v. Wilmington Chem. Corp., Iowa, 1966, 141 ......
-
Eyerly Aircraft Co. v. Killian
...v. Smith, N.D.W.Va. 1966, 257 F.Supp. 578; Jackson v. National Linen Service Corp., W.D.Va.1965, 248 F.Supp. 962; Anderson v. Penncraft Tool Co., N.D.Ill. 1961, 200 F.Supp. 145; contra O'Brien v. Comstock Foods, Inc., 1963, 123 Vt. 461, 194 A.2d 568; see Yules v. General Motors Corp., D.Mon......
-
Hitt v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
...(N. D.Ill.1964); Gray v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 Ill.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961); Anderson v. Penncraft Tool Co., 200 F.Supp. 145, 146 (N.D.Ill. 1961); Vandermee v. District Court, 164 Colo. 117, 433 P.2d 335 (1967); Czarnick v. District Court, 175 Colo. 482, 488 P......