Cancelmo v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 4295.
Decision Date | 05 April 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 4295.,4295. |
Citation | 56 App. DC 225,12 F.2d 166 |
Parties | CANCELMO et al. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
E. L. Hunter and J. T. Crouch, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error.
G. E. Hamilton, J. J. Hamilton, G. E. Hamilton, Jr., Edmund Brady, and H. R. Gower, all of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
The partnership known as A. Cancelmo sued the Seaboard Air Line Railway in the municipal court of the District of Columbia, to recover the sum of $300 for loss and damage by reason of delay on 400 crates of egg plants shipped by one Peterson from Palmetto, Fla., May 9, 1923, to Cancelmo, at Philadelphia, Pa.
Summons was served upon the company by copy left with G. W. Vierbuchen as the agent conducting its business in the District of Columbia. A motion to quash the service was filed by the company, upon the ground, among others, that it was a foreign corporation which was not transacting business in the District of Columbia; that its only activity in the District was the solicitation of traffic and the employment of a general counsel; and that the company therefore was not subject to such a suit therein. The municipal court sustained this motion and quashed the service. This proceeding has been brought to review that order.
It appears in the record that the Seaboard Air Line Railway is a Virginia corporation having its offices at Richmond, Va.; that it is a common carrier of freight and passengers in interstate commerce, operating railroad lines in and through Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama; that it does not own or operate any railroad line within the District of Columbia, nor at any place nearer thereto than Richmond, Va., nor does it operate any train or engage in the business of a common carrier in the District; that it does not maintain any office in the District of Columbia, nor does it employ any agents therein for the conduct of any of its business or affairs, except as shown by the following undisputed statement, to wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Eaton v. Hirst, 2047
... ... 214; ... Steffy, et al. v. Teton Truck Line Co., 44 Wyo. 345; ... Dutton v. Donahue, 44 Wyo. 52; ... Law Reporter 648; Ry. Co. v. Fire Association (Ark.) ... 18 S.W. 43; Worth v ... v. Grosvenor, 144 Tenn. 347, ... 233 S.W. 669; Cancelmo v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. (App. D ... C.) 12 F.2d 166; ... ...
-
Frene v. Louisville Cement Co.
...Tobacco Company v. American Tobacco Co., 1918, 246 U.S. 79, 38 S.Ct. 233, 62 L.Ed. 587, Ann.Cas. 1918C, 537; Cancelmo v. Seaboard Airline Railway, 1926, 56 App.D.C. 225, 12 F.2d 166; Whitaker v. Macfadden Publications, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 165, 105 F.2d 44. A question similar to that involved ......
-
State ex rel. Ferrocarriles Nacionales De Mexico v. Rutledge
... ... Green v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 532; ... Griffin v. Sea Board Air Line ... this will justify such service. Cancelmo v. Seaboard Air ... Line Ry. Co., 12 F.2d 166; People's ... ...
-
The American Univ. In Dubai v. The American Univ., Nos. 08-CV-1625, 08-CV-1626.
...defendant was not “doing business” in Pennsylvania for purposes of in personam jurisdiction. 6 See also Cancelmo v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 12 F.2d 166, 169 (D.C.Cir.1926) (holding that a railroad company that had no tracks within a district was not doing business therein where it “hire[d] a......