Diesing v. Vaughn Wood Products, Inc., Civ. A. No. 1001.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1001. |
| Citation | 175 F. Supp. 460 |
| Parties | Gordon W. DIESING, Plaintiff, v. VAUGHN WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation, doing business under the name of M W Distributors, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
John H. Thornton, Jr., Woods, Rogers, Muse & Walker, Roanoke, Va., Viren, Emmert, Hilmes & Gunderson, Omaha, Neb., Gordon W. Diesing, Omaho, Neb., pro se, for plaintiff.
B. A. Davis, Jr., Rocky Mount, Va. (filing motion to dismiss), Joseph W. Smith, of Hazlegrove, Shackelford & Carr, Roanoke, Va., L. J. Tierney, of Cassem, Tierney, Adams & Henatsch, Omaha, Neb. (signing answer), for defendant.
The plaintiff, a citizen of Nebraska and president of the defendant corporation, a corporation chartered under the laws of Nebraska, obtained a judgment against the defendant in the sum of $102,862 for attorney fees in the Douglas County Court of the state of Nebraska. The defendant's principal and only place of business is in Rocky Mount, Virginia.
The plaintiff instituted this action in this Court on his judgment obtained in the Douglas County Court of Nebraska seeking a judgment in Virginia under the full faith and credit clause of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, and alleged in his complaint that the defendant corporation is a citizen of Virginia under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(c), as amended, effective July 29, 1958.
There are two separate clashing appearances on behalf of the defendant. One of the appearances is signed by a vice-president of the corporation in Nebraska, along with Nebraska and local counsel admitting the jurisdiction of this Court and the factual allegations of the complaint. The other appearance is by B. A. Davis, Jr., Esq., of Rocky Mount, Virginia, as attorney for the defendant by direction of the general manager and executive vice-president of the corporation at Rocky Mount, Virginia, which appearance challenges the jurisdiction of this Court. The two appearances on behalf of the defendant are in direct conflict, and the right of B. A. Davis, Jr., Esq., to appear as attorney for the defendant has been questioned by the other counsel appearing for the defendant.
There is a contract exhibited with the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by B. A. Davis, Jr., Esq., on behalf of the defendant, by the terms of which contract D. C. Vaughn, the general manager and executive vice-president of the corporation at Rocky Mount, Virginia, is authorized to employ counsel on behalf of the defendant corporation to handle local matters pertaining to the business.
The case is before the Court on the complaint, the defendant's answer by its Nebraska vice-president and Nebraska counsel and local counsel, admitting jurisdiction of this Court and the factual allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment upon the admissions in said answer, and on the motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction filed by B. A. Davis, Jr., Esq., as counsel for the defendant by the direction of the general manager and executive vice-president at Rocky Mount, Virginia.
(1) I find that by virtue of the contract filed as an exhibit with the motion to dismiss, that B. A. Davis, Jr., Esq., is authorized to appear as counsel on behalf of the defendant corporation in this action in this Court. Even if he were not so authorized, the Court would on its own motion take cognizance of the jurisdictional question involved.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC v. Segway Inc.
...319 (D.C.N.H.1961), Stroup v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, 186 F.Supp. 154 (D.C.Ohio 1960), Diesing v. Vaughn Wood Products, Inc., 175 F.Supp. 460 (W.D.Va.1959), Harker v. Kopp, et al., 172 F.Supp. 180 (N.D.Ill. V-1 Oil Co. v. CC&T, Inc., 658 F.Supp. 886, 888 (D.Utah 1987).6 The......
-
Chemical Transportation Corp. v. Metropolitan Petro. Corp.
...Harker v. Kopp, 172 F.Supp. 180 (N.D. Ill.1959); Nayer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 200 F.Supp. 319 (D.N.H.1961); Diesing v. Vaughn Wood Prods., Inc., 175 F.Supp. 460 (W.D.Va.1959); Cf. Brown v. Bodak, 188 F.Supp. 532, 533 (S.D.N.Y.1960). But in determining the scope of the restriction, the wor......
-
V-1 Oil Co. v. CC & T, INC.
...319 (D.C.N.H.1961), Stroup v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, 186 F.Supp. 154 (D.C.Ohio 1960), Diesing v. Vaughn Wood Products, Inc., 175 F.Supp. 460 (D.C.W.D.Va.1959), Harker v. Kopp, et al., 172 F.Supp. 180 Two leading treatises on federal practice and procedure firmly adopt the ......
-
Prack v. Weissinger
...Hubbell, 9 Cir., 1951, 188 F.2d 106, 109; Sullivan v. State of Sao Paulo, 2 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 355, 358; Diesing v. Vaughn Wood Products, Inc., D.C.W.D.Va.1959, 175 F.Supp. 460, 461; Myers v. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n, D.C.W.D.Va.1955, 130 F.Supp. 653, These authorities compel th......