Elgin Canning Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1885
• Citation: Elgin Canning Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 24 F. 866 (N.D. Iowa 1885)
• Parties: ELGIN CANNING CO. v. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

24 F. 866

ELGIN CANNING CO. v. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.

1885

Rickel & Bull, for plaintiff.

McCrary & Hagerman and James Hagerman, for defendant.

SHIRAS J.

This action was originally brought in the superior court of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.The defendant, at the time it appeared in that court, filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, and also a petition for the removal of the cause into this court which petition was granted.Upon the filing of the record in this tribunal the plaintiff demurred to defendant's plea to the jurisdiction, and the cause is now before the court upon the issue thus presented.In the petition filed, the plaintiff avers that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Iowa, and that on the twenty-fourth of October, 1884, one O. C. Evans, of Pueblo, Colorado ordered of plaintiff certain goods, to be forwarded to Pueblo, that the plaintiff delivered said goods to the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company, 'as the initial line of railway engaged in transporting said goods to said point;' that said plaintiff, not knowing said Evans, and not wishing to deliver said goods to him until he had paid for the same, consigned said goods to themselves at Pueblo, and drew a draft for the price thereof upon Evans through the First National Bank of Pueblo accompanied with an order upon defendant for the delivery of the goods; that the defendant delivered the goods to said Evans wrongfully, before he had paid for the same; that Evans is insolvent, and plaintiff has been unable to collect the price of said goods from him; wherefore, defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the loss thus caused.I; the plea to the jurisdiction of the superior court of Cedar Rapids, filed by defendant, it is averred that the defendant is a corporation, created under the laws of the state of Kansas, engaged in operating a line of railway in Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico; that it was not organized for the purpose of operating any line of railroad in Iowa, and that it is not now operating, nor has it ever operated, any such line in Iowa; and, further, that the cause of action sued on did not grow out of, and is in nowise connected with, any office or agency of defendant in Iowa.The question, therefore, for determination is whether the courts of Iowa have jurisdiction of the defendant under the facts disclosed upon the record in this cause.

Section 2582 of the Code of Iowa provides that 'actions may be brought against railway corporations * * * in any county through which the line or road thereof passes or is operated. 'Section 2585 further provides that 'when a corporation, company, or individual,as an office or agency in any county for the transaction of business, any suit growing out of or connected with the business of that office or agency may be brought in the county where such office or agency is located. ' These provisions apply to foreign as well as to domestic corporations, and hence, if it appeared that the defendant was operating any line of railway in the state of Iowa, or that it had an office or agency in any county for the transaction of business, and the cause of action arose out of business connected with such office or agency, then the courts of the state would have jurisdiction over the defendant, as the case would then be within the principles laid down in Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 369.

In the case now before the court, the averments of...