Carter-Beveridge Drilling Co. v. Hughes, 20264.
| Decision Date | 16 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20264.,20264. |
| Citation | 323 F.2d 417 |
| Parties | CARTER-BEVERIDGE DRILLING CO., Inc., Appellant, v. J. Willis HUGHES, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Scott Tennyson, Jackson, Miss., Heidelberg, Woodliff & Franks, Jackson, Miss., Lemle & Kelleher, New Orleans, La., of counsel, for appellant.
Thomas R. Crews, Jackson, Miss., Lucius F. Suthon, New Orleans, La., Alexander, Herring & Crews, Jackson, Miss., of counsel, for appellee.
Before RIVES and JONES, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, Jr., District Judge.
Contrary to appellant's position, we hold that the venue provisions of 28 U.S. C. § 1391(c) are not applicable to corporations suing as plaintiffs. The effect of the statute is that a corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such defendant corporation is considered a resident of the judicial district for venue purposes. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(c); Robert E. Lee & Co., Inc. v. Veatch, 301 F.2d 434 (C.A. 4, 1961), cert. denied 371 U.S. 813, 83 S.Ct. 23, 9 L.Ed.2d 55 (1962).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DC Electronics, Inc. v. Schlesinger
...83 S.Ct. 23, 9 L. Ed.2d 55 (1962); Manchester Modes, Inc. v. Schuman, 426 F.2d 629, 630 (2d Cir. 1970); Carter-Beveridge Drilling Co. v. Hughes, 323 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1963) (Per Curiam). Accordingly, the rule in Suttle, supra, that only the state and district of incorporation is the reside......
-
Control Data Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
...E. Lee & Co. v. Veatch, 301 F.2d 434 (4th Cir. 1961), cert. denied 371 U.S. 813, 83 S.Ct. 23, 9 L.Ed.2d 55; Carter-Beveridge Drilling Co. v. Hughes, 323 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1963). See also Abbott Laboratories v. Celebrezze, 228 F.Supp. 855 (D.C.Del. 1964) vac'd and dismissed on other grounds......
-
City of Burbank v. General Electric Company
...supra; Judge Robeson's discussion in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., supra; Judge Knoch's dissent in that reversal, 323 F.2d 417; the dicta in Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Birnamwood Oil Co., supra; the ruling without discussion, in N. W. Electric Power Co-op, Inc. v. Gen......
-
Flowers Industries, Inc. v. F.T.C.
...F.2d 1183, 1185-87 (3d Cir.1974); Manchester Modes, Inc. v. Schuman, 426 F.2d 629, 630-33 (2d Cir.1970); Carter-Beveridge Drilling Co. v. Hughes, 323 F.2d 417, 418 (5th Cir.1963); Robert E. Lee & Co. v. Veatch, 301 F.2d 434, 436-38 (4th Cir.1961), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 813, 83 S.Ct. 23, 9 ......
-
CHAPTER 17 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL|INDIAN|STATE ROYALTY AND COLLECTION DECISIONS
...Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1289 (9th Cir. 1977); Carter-Beveridge Drilling Company, Inc. v. Hughes, 323 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1963). The statute creates the opportunity for permissible forum-shopping because of the alternatives set forth above. Factors to consi......