Clews v. Woodstock Iron Co.

Decision Date13 October 1890
Citation44 F. 31
PartiesCLEWS v. WOODSTOCK IRON CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Strong & Cadwalader, for the motion.

Noah Davis, contra.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

In Good Hope Co. v. Railway B.F. Co., 22 F. 635, it was held that service of summons upon the president, secretary or treasurer of a foreign corporation, which is not engaged in business in this state, would be inoperative to confer jurisdiction. The decision was rendered after the converse of that proposition had been announced by the court of appeals (construing section 432 of the New York Code,) this court quoting with approval the language of the opinion in Moulin v. Insurance Co., 24 N.J.Law, 224, which characterized a law similar to that of this state as 'so contrary to natural justice and to the principles of international law that courts of other states ought not to sanction it. ' As indicated in Golden v. Morning News, 42 Fed.

Rep 112, that decision must be accepted as settling the law in this circuit. Its principles are as applicable to causes which are removed as to those which are not. It would be absurd to hold that proceedings in a state court were void on the theory that such court acquired no jurisdiction of the party because its attempted service of process was abhorrent to natural justice and international law, and at the same time to hold that a federal court could administer justice under such a service after the cause had been removed to its forum. Nor does removal and special appearance by the defendant waive its right to avail of a defective service. Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476; Miner v Markham, 28 F. 395. The only question, therefore, which is left for decision upon this application is whether the corporation defendant was at the time of service of the summons engaged in business in this state. That question must be determined by what it had done, or was doing, at that time, rather than by what it might do thereafter. That it will probably hereafter provide a regular agency in this state for the continuous transaction of the business of registration and transfer of its bonds and payment of the interest on the coupons during the continuance of the mortgage is immaterial. The only business which it had done up to the 18th July was the borrowing of money upon its bond and mortgage, and the obtaining from the stock exchange of the privilege of having such bonds called on the list of securities...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Frawley Bundy & Wilcox v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • July 23, 1903
    ...... negotiation of bonds by the president of an Alabama company. in New York City (Clews v. Iron Co. (C.C.) 44 F. 31); to the making of a loan to a citizen of the state, who. contracts ......
  • Erlanger Mills v. Cohoes Fibre Mills, 7262.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • November 7, 1956
    ...361, 39 S.E. 559, 55 L.R.A. 146. 6 Louden Machinery Co. v. American Malleable Iron Co., C.C.S.D.Iowa, 127 F. 1008; Clews v. Woodstock Iron Co., C.C.S.D.N.Y., 44 F. 31; Wilkins v. Queen City Savings Bank & Trust Co., C.C. S.D.N.Y., 154 F. 173; Hoyt v. Ogden Portland Cement Co., C.C.N.D.N.Y.,......
  • Honerine Min. & Mill. Co. v. Tallerday Steel Pipe & Tank Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • December 5, 1906
    ...of the doing business within the state." (Goodhope Co. v. Wire Fencing Co., 22 F. 635; Glass Co. v. Glass Mfg. Co., 87 F. 418; Clews v. Iron Co., 44 F. 31; Wall Railway, 95 F. 398; Morawetz on Private Corporations, sec. 522; Wire Mill Co. v. Barb Wire Co., 32 F. 802.) In the notes to the ca......
  • Wina v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 1, 1999
    ...Ltd., 804 F. Supp. 465, 468 (E.D.N.Y. 1992); Fowble v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 16 F.2d 504, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1926); Clews v. Woodstock Iron Co., 44 F. 31, 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1890); Freeman v. Bean, 266 N.Y. 657, 657-58 (1935). However, defendants misread the scope of the existing caselaw when the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT