Gormully & Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1888 |
| Citation | 34 F. 818 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | GORMULLY & JEFFREY MANUF'G CO. v. POPE MANUF'G CO. |
Coburn & Thacher, for the motion.
Offield & Towle, contra.
The question is whether under the act of March 3, 1887, this court has jurisdiction, or can obtain jurisdiction, in a case for infringement of a patent, of a corporation created under the laws of another state, and which is averred to be a citizen of another state, although it is alleged that it has a place of business in this district, by service upon an agent of such corporation in this district. This first section of the act of March 3, 1887, after defining the jurisdiction of the circuit and district courts of the United States, Proceeds: 'And no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but when the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or defendant. ' Now, this is a suit under the patent laws of the United States, of which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, without regard to the citizenship of the parties, and hence does not fall within the last clause of the excerpt just quoted from the statute; but it does seem to fall directly within the rule of the first clause quoted that no defendant shall be sued in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant. From the judiciary act of 1789 to 1887 a defendant could be sued in the district whereof he was an inhabitant, or in which he was 'found at the time of the service of the writ;' but the act of March 3, 1887, requires suit to be brought in the district whereof the defendant is an inhabitant, and drops from the law the provision that he may be also sued in any district where he may be found at the time of serving the process. The obvious purpose of this change was to protect persons in certain classes of cases from the expense and annoyance of being sued in districts which they might be merely passing through, or where they might be temporarily tarrying. 'An inhabitant of a place is one who ordinarily is personally present there, not merely in interne, but as a resident and dweller therein. ' Holmes v. Railroad Co., 9 Fed.Rep. 229. 'Inhabitant: One who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stonite Products Co v. Melvin Lloyd Co
...33 F. 308; Miller-Magee Co. v. Carpenter, C.C., 34 F. 433; Halstead v. Manning, Bowman & Co., C.C., 34 F. 565; Gormully & Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co., C.C., 34 F. 818; Preston v. Fire-Extinguisher Mfg. Co., C.C., 36 F. 721; Adriance, Platt & Co. v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., C.C.......
-
Lewis Blind Stitch Co. v. Arbetter Felling Mach. Co.
... ... 887. Two courts have not ... followed it: Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Watson (C.C.) 74 F ... 418, and Memphis Cotton ... Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co. (C.C.) 56 F. 849; Second ... circuit, Halstead v ... Carpenter ... (C.C.) 34 F. 433; Seventh circuit, Gormully & ... Jeffrey Mfg. Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co. (C.C.) 34 F. 818; ... ...
-
Bacon v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
... ... controlling. Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v. Midland Tire Co ... (C.C.A.) 285 F. 214. But the ... Halstead v. Manning (C.C. 1888) 34 F. 565; ... Gormully & Jeffery Mfg. Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co. (C.C ... 1888) 34 F ... ...
-
State ex rel. McDermott Realty Co. v. McElhinney
...only if it does its business and has its principal office in this State. But no fact of this kind appears anywhere in the record. Gormully v. Pope, 34 F. 818; Riddle Railroad, 39 F. 290; Gilbert v. Insurance Co., 49 F. 885; Shamwald v. Davids, 69 F. 704; Scollenberger, Ex parte, 96 U.S. 369......