Block v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 September 1884 |
| Citation | 21 F. 529 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | BLOCK v. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. |
Dyer Lee & Ellis, for plaintiff.
James Hagerman, for defendant.
I have well-settled convictions in reference to this matter, because I have had this question of service on foreign corporations before me in two or three districts. True, it was presented in different phases; but I have had occasion to fully examine the question. In Kansas we have a statute that authorizes service upon railroad corporations by delivering process to an agent who sells tickets; and in one case I had before me service was attempted to be made on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company by serving an agent of the Kansas City, St. Joe & Council Bluffs Railroad, on the claim that he was in the habit of selling coupon tickets over the Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad, and therefore, as he had been doing that several years, and those tickets had been recognized by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, he was the agent of that road to sell tickets. I set aside that service, because I thought the act extended only to agents who were direct agents, and he was a mere subagent, and only authorized to receive service as the agent of the St. Joe & Council Bluffs Railroad, the corporation by which he was directly employed, and to which alone he accounted. There is a case later than those spoken of by counsel, which, if my memory serves me right, went to the supreme court of the United States from Michigan, where, under a statute authorizing service on the president or chief officer of a corporation, service was made on some chief officer of an eastern corporation who was simply passing through the state; and, whatever court decided it, it was held that the corporation was not found in the state unless it had an office there for the transaction of business in the state, and that the mere temporary traveling of an officer through the state did not locate the corporation there. That applies to the case which was decided by the court this morning, where service was had on a traveling salesman, who, for all the return disclosed, was merely traveling through the state, and therefore was not a sufficient service.
But, in this case, this corporation defendant has established a business office here, and has an agency. It does not run its railroads here, carry passengers, or transport freight...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Roller
...94 Wis. 70, 74, 80, 68 N.W. 664, 34 L.R.A. 503; Ackerson v. Railway Co., 31 N.J.Law, 309; Steed v. Harvey (Utah) 54 P. 1011; Block v. Railroad Co. (C.C.) 21 F. 529. Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65, 83, 20 L.Ed. 354, the facts were that Harris, while traveling as a passenger on the Balti......
-
State ex rel. Ferrocarriles Nacionales De Mexico v. Rutledge
... ... laid down in Michigan Central Railroad Co. v. Mix, ... 278 U.S. 492; Atchison, T. & S. F. Railroad Co. v ... Wells, 265 U.S. 101; Davis v. Farmers' Co-op ... Equity Co., ... v ... Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579; International Text Book Co ... v. Pigg, 217 U.S. 91; Block v. Atchison, T. & S. F ... Railroad Co., 21 F. 529; Walsh v. Atlantic Coast ... Line Railroad ... ...
-
Frawley Bundy & Wilcox v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co.
...not held sufficient, reference may be made to Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602, 19 Sup.Ct. 308, 43 L.Ed. 569; Block v. R.R. (C.C.) 21 F. 529; Cen. Ry. v. Pinkney, 149 U.S. 194, 13 Sup.Ct. 859, 37 L.Ed. 699; and Maxwell v. R.R. (C.C.) 34 F. 286. While differing in the res......
-
Louisville Co v. Chatters Southern Ry Co v. Same
...Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91, 103, 30 S. Ct. 481, 54 L. Ed. 678, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 493, 18 Ann. Cas. 1103; Block v. Atchison, Topeka & S. F. R. Co. (C. C.) 21 F. 529; Walsh v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (D. C.) 256 F. 47. But see Green v. C. B. & Q. Ry., 205 U. S. 530, 27 S. Ct. 595......