Blum v. Postal Telegraph
| Decision Date | 23 April 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 2003.,2003. |
| Citation | 60 F. Supp. 237 |
| Parties | BLUM v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
E. B. Goldsmith and C. J. Tannehill, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Henry O. Evans, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
Edw. Schreiner, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for Postal Telegraph Cable Co. of Pennsylvania.
This is an action to recover damages against Postal Telegraph, Inc., by reason of personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of Postal Telegraph, Inc., April 15, 1940. This action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April 7, 1942, about one week before the statute of limitations had run. In plaintiff's statement of claim he alleged that defendant, the Postal Telegraph, Inc., "is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware." The action was removed by Postal Telegraph, Inc., to this court.
The action was before this court April 26, 1944 (see opinion filed on that date, 54 F.Supp. 898) on two motions, the first being the motion of defendant to dismiss the action; the second, was the motion of plaintiff to amend his statement of claim or complaint, so as to make the name of the defendant read "Postal Telegraph Cable Company of Pennsylvania." The motion of the defendant to dismiss the action was refused, as was also the motion of the plaintiff to amend the name of the defendant. Plaintiff filed another motion in this court, January 26, 1945, wherein he prayed that the defendant be named "Postal Telegraph, Inc. and Postal Telegraph Cable Company of Pennsylvania." A rule to show cause was granted against the Postal Telegraph Cable Company. Notice of this rule was served by one of the attorneys for the plaintiff upon a person named as Superintendent of the Western Union Telegraph Company, successor to the Postal Telegraph Cable Company. Notice was also served upon the attorney for Postal Telegraph Cable Company specially appearing for said company, for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of this court, vacating the rule to show cause and the service thereof, and of raising the question of the statute of limitations and res adjudicata. Postal Telegraph Cable Company, by its attorney, filed a written motion, February 15, 1945, in which it objected to the jurisdiction of this court and moved the court to set aside the service made on Postal Telegraph Cable Company of Pennsylvania, and objected to the proposed amendment to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co.
...and be given an opportunity to respond and to defend itself. Moore v. Knowles, supra; Sarne v. Fiesta Motel, supra; Blum v. Postal Telegraph, 60 F.Supp. 237 (D.C.Pa.1945). Without service of process, the court in fact has no jurisdiction over the purportedly joined party. Sarne v. Fiesta Mo......
-
Bruun v. Katz Drug Co.
... ... 1077; Oklahoma ... Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 273 U.S. 257, 71 L.Ed. 634; ... Blum v. Postal Telegraph, Inc., 54 F.Supp. 898, 60 ... F.Supp. 237; 74 A.L.R. 1280, 1282, Annotation Re ... ...
-
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Fibreboard Products
...D.C.S.D.Cal., 112 F.Supp. 199. To the contrary is Blum v. Postal Telegraph, D.C.W.D.Pa., 54 F. Supp. 898. See also Blum v. Postal Telegraph, D.C.W.D.Pa., 60 F.Supp. 237. No lengthy discussion of these cases is required. It suffices to say that none of these decisions are authority which bin......
-
Bruun v. Katz Drug Co.
... ... corporation "are defendants." Thompson v ... Allen, 86 Mo. 85; Blum v. Postal Telegraph, 60 ... F.Supp. 237; Ferris' Adm. v. Hunt, 18 Mo. 480; ... Chandler v ... ...