Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vehicle Equipment Co.
| Decision Date | 06 August 1907 |
| Citation | 155 F. 676 |
| Parties | FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. v. VEHICLE EQUIPMENT CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
McElheny & Bennett, for plaintiff.
Griggs Baldwin & Pierce, for defendant.
The Vehicle Equipment Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, and its original certificate of incorporation fixes Waverly, in the county of Tioga, and state of New York, as the location of its principal office. On the 27th day of March, 1906, a petition in bankruptcy was filed against the defendant in the Eastern district of New York, in which district the Vehicle Equipment Company had its manufacturing plant and what might be called its office for the transaction of general business. The petition in bankruptcy recited that the defendant had, for the greater portion of six months next preceding the date of filing of the petition, its principal place of business in the borough of Queens, city of New York, and state of New York, and was engaged in the manufacture and sale of electric automobiles and vehicles. The alleged bankrupt, upon the 6th day of April, 1906, filed a consent that the company be adjudicated a bankrupt, which consent was in the form of a resolution which authorized the counsel of the company to admit the allegations of the petition and consent to an immediate adjudication in bankruptcy. Subsequently the property of the bankrupt was sold, and in the petition drawn in behalf of the receiver for approval of the sale a recital was made that the Vehicle Equipment Company was a business corporation, located and having its principal business office in the borough of Queens, city of New York, etc. An offer of composition was prepared, and a petition presented to the court, which contained the same recitals as in the petition for sale.
The plaintiff in this action is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of West Virginia, and a resident and citizen of that state. Under these circumstances it was possible to serve the defendant in either the Northern district of New York, where it has an office at the village of Waverly, or in the Eastern district of New York, where the bankruptcy proceedings were pending. The plaintiff started this action, and obtained the issuance of a summons, in the United States Circuit Court for this (the Eastern) district upon the 25th day of April, 1907. At that time the property of the defendant was in the hands of the trustee in this district. Subsequent to the service of the process in this action, the property in the hands of the trustee, upon the confirmation of the composition, was returned to the bankrupt corporation, and there is nothing in the papers to show whether the corporation is at present doing business or where it is located.
The present action is one for the recovery of money for goods sold and delivered and services rendered, and the only ground of jurisdiction in the United States Circuit Court would seem to be diversity of citizenship. For the purposes of a bankruptcy proceeding the Eastern district of New York was apparently a proper district in which to file a petition in bankruptcy. The provisions of the statute give jurisdiction to the District Courts of the United States to 'adjudge persons bankrupt who have had their principal place of business, resided, or had their domicile within their (the courts') respective territorial jurisdictions for the preceding six months, or the greater portion thereof. ' The judiciary acts of 1887 and 1888 provide that 'no civil suit shall be brought * * * against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hydro-Clear Corporation v. Aer-o-Flo Corporation, C 69-748.
...the defendant resides in the Southern District of Ohio rather than in the Northern District of Ohio. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vehicle Equip. Co., 155 F. 676 (C.C.E.D.N.Y.1907); 19 Am.Jur.2d Corporations § 1460; 12 O. Jur.2d Corporations § 266. See also Gorman v. A. B. Leach & Co.,......
-
Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York
...located. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio R. Co. v. Gonzales, 151 U.S. 496, 14 S.Ct. 401, 38 L.Ed. 248; Firestone Tire & R. Co. v. Vehicle Equipment Co., 155 F. 676 (C.C.E.D.N.Y.); Vidal v. South American Securities Co., 276 F. 855, 865 (C.C. A.2). Cf. Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Wills......
-
Sheppard v. Atlantic States Gas Co.
...Gonzales, 151 U.S. 496, 504, 14 S.Ct. 401, 38 L.Ed. 248; London v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 4 Cir., 111 F.2d 127; Firestone Tire & R. Co. v. Vehicle Equipment Co., 2 Cir., 155 F. 676. 8 R.S. § 740, 36 Stat. 1101, § 52, 28 U.S. C.A. § 113. The section in its entirety follows: "When a State conta......
-
Gorman v. AB Leach & Co.
...as designated in its certificate or articles of incorporation in accordance with the requirement of the state law." Firestone Co. v. Vehicle Co. (C. C.) 155 F. 676. Finally it has been held, by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (In re Federal Contracting Co., supra), that where ......