Hadden v. Barrow, Wade, Guthrie & Co.
Decision Date | 23 May 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 28609.,28609. |
Citation | 105 F. Supp. 530 |
Parties | HADDEN v. BARROW, WADE, GUTHRIE & CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
B. B. Fensterstock, New York City, L. C. Wykoff, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Maurice F. Hanning, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.
Plaintiff, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Manufacturers Trading Corporation, brought this action against defendants, a firm of public accountants, for alleged breach of contract to perform services for plaintiff. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, licensed to do business in Ohio and doing business in Ohio. Defendant is a partnership composed of many partners, each of whom is a citizen of the United States, but none of whom is a citizen or resident of the State of Delaware. Defendant has moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the venue is improperly laid.
Determination of the question presented turns on the construction of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(c). Do the provisions of that section pertain solely to actions against a corporation, or do they also grant residence to a corporation in this state so that, as plaintiff, it may lay the venue of a suit predicated on diversity in this district? The section reads, as follows:
"A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes."
In Freiday v. Cowdin, D.C.1949, 83 F. Supp. 516, 517, the court, when faced with the identical inquiry, commented:
The records of the Congressional hearings on the Judicial Code ( ) shed no light nor disclose any indication of the intent of the debated language.
Two text writers1 as well as a district court2 took views directly contrary to that stated in the above case. The contention giving rise to their position, that Section 1391(c) is merely a codification of the doctrine announced in Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 1939, 308 U.S. 165, 60 S.Ct. 153, 84 L.Ed. 167, is neither borne out by an analysis of the statute nor by its legislative history. The Neirbo case clarifies and restates the proposition of law first announced in Ex parte Schollenberger, 1877, 96 U.S. 369, 24 L.Ed. 853, that the designation of an agent for service of process by a corporation in a state where it is engaged in business is an effective consent to be sued in the federal courts of that state. That decision may have impelled the enactment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DC Electronics, Inc. v. Schlesinger
...F.Supp. 910 (E.D.Tex.1956); Southern Paperboard Corporation v. United States, 127 F.Supp. 649 (S.D.N.Y.1955); Hadden v. Barrow, Wade, Guthrie & Co., 105 F.Supp. 530 (N.D.Ohio 1952); Freiday v. Cowdin, 83 F.Supp. 516 (S.D.N.Y.1948), appeal dism. by consent, 177 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1949); 1 Ba......
-
Mutual International Export Co. v. Napco Industries, Inc.
...138 F.Supp. 426 (1956); Southern Paperboard Corporation v. United States, S.D.N.Y., 127 F. Supp. 649 (1955); Hadden v. Barrow, Wade, Guthrie & Co., N.D.Ohio, 105 F. Supp. 530 (1952); Freiday v. Cowdin, S. D.N.Y., 83 F.Supp. 516 (1949). Contra, Robert E. Lee & Co. v. Veatch, 4 Cir., 301 F.2d......
-
Control Data Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
...143 F.Supp. 910 (E.D.Tex. 1956); Eastern Motor Express, Inc. v. Espenshade, 138 F.Supp. 426 (E.D.Pa. 1956); Hadden v. Barrow, Wade, Guthrie & Co., 105 F.Supp. 530 (N.D.Ohio 1952). The view taken in this line of cases is that construing 1391(c) in this way is more in keeping with the Congres......
-
Abbott Laboratories v. Celebrezze, Civ. A. No. 2737.
...L.Ed.2d 55 (1962). Plaintiff and defendant corporations: Freiday v. Cowdin, 83 F.Supp. 516 (S. D.N.Y.1949); Hadden v. Barrow, Wade, Guthrie & Co., 105 F.Supp. 530 (N.D. Ohio 1952); Southern Paperboard Corporation v. United States, 127 F.Supp. 649 (S.D.N.Y.1955); Eastern Motor Express, Inc. ......