Hirschl v. J.I. Case Threshing-Mach. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1890 |
| Citation | 42 F. 803 |
| Parties | Hirschl v. J. I. CASE THRESHING MACH. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
W. J. Roberts, for plaintiff.
Craig, McCrary & Craig, for defendant.
A corporation is a citizen of the state under whose laws it is organized. For the purpose of suing and being sued, it may become a resident of each state in which it does business under state law. The rule, under the removal act of August 13, 1888, as to natural persons, is applicable to corporations. When a corporation of one state is sued in the courts of another state, a petition for removal by it is not sufficient unless it alleges, in addition to the usual averments as to citizenship, that it is a non-resident of the state in which it is sued. The motion to remand is sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... The part of the petition upon which the case depends is as ... follows: "Your petitioner further states that in the ... Justice Miller, ... sitting in the circuit court, in Hirschl v. Machine ... Co., 42 F. 803. The following is the entire opinion of ... ...
-
Overman Wheel Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co.
... ... reliance is placed upon Hirschl v. Threshing-Mach ... Co., 42 F. 803. The defendant insists that the ... the state court must affirmatively show that the case is ... removable, (Crehore v. Railroad Co., 131 U.S. 240, 9 ... S.Ct ... ...
-
Duncan v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company
... ... different States? ... The ... case as made by the complaint, and as it stood at the time ... the [49 La.Ann ... ...