Hendry v. Masonite Corporation, 71-2043
| Decision Date | 14 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2043,71-2005.,71-2043 |
| Citation | 455 F.2d 955 |
| Parties | Andre HENDRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MASONITE CORPORATION and Robert E. Paul, Defendants-Appellees. Vander E. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MASONITE CORPORATION and Robert E. Paul, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
George D. Maxey, Laurel, Miss., Stanford Young, Waynesboro, Miss., for Andre Hendry, plaintiff-appellant.
Quitman Ross, Laurel, Miss., for Vander E. Lee, plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas A. Bell, Joe H. Daniel, Jackson, Miss., for defendants-appellees.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 14, 1972.
The issue here is whether there was requisite diversity jurisdiction in the federal court when these cases were removed from a Mississippi state court. We hold that the district court erred in not finding that one of the defendants, Robert E. Paul, was a citizen of Mississippi at the time process was served on him, so that these cases must be reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to remand them to the state court.
For purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction "citizenship" and "domicile" are synonymous. Stine v. Moore, 213 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1954). In determining one's "citizenship" or "domicile" statements of intent are entitled to little weight when in conflict with facts. Welsh v. American Surety Co. of New York, 186 F.2d 16 (5th Cir. 1951).
The facts concerning the citizenship of defendant Paul are these. Until May 1, 1970, he was a vice president of the Masonite Corporation and manager in charge of its Mississippi operations with offices in Laurel, Mississippi. On April 13, 1970, Paul accepted a company promotion to Chicago, Illinois, to become effective on May 1, 1970. There is no doubt that when he accepted that promotion he then decided to move to Illinois and become a citizen there at some time. Thereafter, he was personally served on June 2, 1970, in the Hendry case and on June 13, 1970, in the Lee case. The issue is whether he had carried out his intention to move his domicile to Illinois prior to those two dates.
The facts set forth in Paul's affidavit are as follows:
Defendant and his wife personally voted in the primary election held in Jones...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coury v. Prot
...places of business or employment, and maintains a home for his family. See Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir.1986); Hendry v. Masonite Corp., 455 F.2d 955 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1023, 93 S.Ct. 464, 34 L.Ed.2d 315 (1972); 1 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 0.74[3.-3] n. 18 (1......
-
Wright v. Combined Ins. Co. of America
...of intent are entitled to little weight when in conflict with the facts." Freeman, 754 F.2d at 556 (quoting Hendry v. Masonite Corp., 455 F.2d 955, 956 (5th Cir.1972)). Domicile, then, is determined by looking at the objective facts. Freeman, 754 F.2d at Ms. Steele states that she has regis......
-
Blanchard v. Peerless Ins. Co.
...when in conflict with facts.' " Freeman v. Northwest Acceptance Corp., 754 F.2d 553, 556 (5th Cir.1985) (quoting Hendry v. Masonite Corp., 455 F.2d 955, 956 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1023, 93 S.Ct. 464, 34 L.Ed.2d 315 (1972)) (emphasis added) (discussing proof of "domicile"). Since......
-
Mas v. Perry
...since she and Mr. Mas were in Louisiana only as students and lacked the requisite intention to remain there. See Hendry v. Masonite Corp., 5 Cir., 1972, 455 F.2d 955, cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1023, 93 S.Ct. 464, 34 L.Ed.2d 315. Until she acquires a new domicile, she remains a domiciliary, an......