Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1889 |
| Citation | 38 F. 273 |
| Parties | HOHORST v. HAMBURG-AMER. PACKET CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
W. D Edmonds, for the motion.
Salter T. Clark, for complainant.
W. D Edmonds, for the motion, cited:
Connor v. Railroad Co., 36 F. 273; Vannerson v Leverett, 31 F. 376; Jessup v. Railroad Co. 36 F. 735; Halstead v. Manning, 34 F. 565; Manufacturing Co. v. Manufacturing Co., Id. 818; Reinstadler v. Reeves, 33 F. 308; Preston v Fire Extinguisher Co., Fed.Rep. 721; Manufacturing Co. v. Manufacturing Co., 34 F. 818; Holmes v. Railroad Co., 9 Fed.Rep. 229; Denton v. International Co., 36 F. 1; U.S. v. Yates, 6 How. 605; Hunt v. Brennan, 1 Hun. 213; Becker v. Lamont, 13 How.Pr. 23; Sullivan v. Frazee, 4 Rob. (N.Y.) 616.
Salter T. Clark, for complainant, cited:
Creighton v. Kerr, 20 Wall. 8; Norris v. Steam-Ship Co. 37 F. 279.
That the court has power to allow a general notice of appearance to be amended so as to make it special only seems to be well settled. U.S. v. Yates, 6 How. 605. The defendant prays for this relief solely, as it insists, because since filing the notice of appearance the bill has been amended so that it can no longer be demurred to for want of jurisdiction. The motion will be granted unless within five days after entry and services of this order the complainant shall stipulate to withdraw his amended bill, and go to trial on the original bill.
The defendant the Hamburg-American Packet Company further moves to set aside the service of process upon it because this court has no jurisdiction of the person of such defendant. The suit is brought by a citizen and resident of the state of New York to restrain infringement of a patent, and for damages. As such it is covered by the clause of section 1 of the act of March 3, 1887, which provides that no civil suit shall be brought against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant. The Hamburg-American Packet Company is incorporated under the laws of a European government. Its principal offices and place of business are, and always have been, situated in the city of Hamburg, Germany; all its directors and stockholders being residents of the German empire. The business of the said company is that of an ocean carrier between foreign ports and the port of New York. Its financial agents in this country are Kunhardt & Co., and it advertises their office as its office in New York. By Kunhardt & Co., as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage
... ... well recognized in other situations raising the same ... question. Hohorst v. Hamburg American Co. (C.C.) 38 ... F. 273 (reversed on another point in Re Hohorst, 150 ... the court first obtained. In Hohorst v. Hamburg American ... Packet Co. (C.C.) 38 F. 273 (1889), the court decided ... that it had power to allow a general notice of ... ...
-
Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Coffey
...plead the diversity of citizenship in the original declaration. "The cases cited by counsel for the defendant Hohorst v. Hamburg-American Packet Co. (C. C.) 38 F. 273; Hagstoz v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (C. C.) 179 F. 569; Durabilt Steel Locker Co. v. Berger Mfg. Co. (D. C.) 21 F.(2d) 139; Leo......
-
Durabilt Steel Locker Co. v. Berger Mfg. Co.
...of the absence of venue disclosed by the amended pleading. See Crown Cotton Mills v. Turner (C. C.) 82 F. 337; Hohorst v. Hamburg-Amer. Packet Co. (C. C.) 38 F. 273; same case on appeal, 148 U. S. 262, 13 S. Ct. 590, 37 L. Ed. 443. Likewise, an appearance by a defendant to a pleading which ......
-
Hagstoz v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
... ... be made to the following cases: United States v. Yates, 6 ... How. 605, 12 L.Ed. 575; Hohorst v. Hamburg Co ... (C.C.) 38 F. 273; Jenkins v. York Cliffs Improvement ... Co. (C.C.) 110 F ... ...