Houston v. Filer & Stowell Co.
| Decision Date | 21 February 1898 |
| Citation | 85 F. 757 |
| Parties | HOUSTON et al. v. FILER & STOWELL CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
D. V Samuels, for plaintiffs.
Partridge & Partridge, for defendant.
This action was originally brought in the circuit court for Cook county. The plaintiffs are residents of Illinois, and the defendant is a corporation under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, having its office and place of business in the city of Milwaukee, state of Wisconsin. The defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling sawmill machinery, and has no office, or place of business, in the state of Illinois, nor anywhere else than in the city of Milwaukee, and none of its officers or directors are citizens of the state of Illinois. The plaintiffs and defendant had had some transactions relating to sawmill machinery, sold by the defendant to the plaintiffs, in the outcome of which the defendant claimed a sum of money as back payment, and the plaintiffs claimed a sum of money as damages arising out of the defendant's failure to properly fulfill its contract. Pending a settlement of these transactions the general manager of the defendant wrote the plaintiffs that, at a certain day in the future, he would be in Chicago and a conference might then be had between them respecting an adjustment of their differences. The conference was postponed several times, but was, in the end, held, in pursuance of this suggestion of the defendant's general manager. I can find that the plaintiffs in no sense fraudulently invited or lured the general manager of the defendant to Chicago, that under the pretense of a conference, they might serve him with summons in the action brought.
The conference proved unavailing, whereupon, at its conclusion, in pursuance of a prearrangement made by the plaintiffs, a deputy sheriff served upon the general manager of the defendant a summons in the action now pending. The purpose of the motion under consideration is to vacate service. The action was removed by the defendant upon a special appearance for the purpose of vacating the service.
A corporation is not necessarily found in the county or district merely because one of its general officers may be there, though the officer be its general manager. But when he is in the county or district, under charge of the corporation, to do something with respect to the business upon which the suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erlanger Mills v. Cohoes Fibre Mills
...D.C.E.D.Pa., 271 F. 517; Brush Creek Coal & Mining Co. v. Morgan-Gardner Electric Co., C.C.W.D.Mo., 136 F. 505; Houston v. Filer & Stowell Co., C.C.N.D. Ill., 85 F. 757; Abbeville Electric Light & Power Co. v. Western Electric Supply Co., 61 S.C. 361, 39 S.E. 559, 55 L.R.A. 6 Louden Machine......
-
Atkinson v. United States Operating Company
...of settlement of the dispute out of which the action arose is sufficient to authorize service of summons in such action. Houston v. Filer & Stowell Co. 85 F. 757; Haven Pulp & Board Co. v. Downingtown Mnfg. Co. 130 F. 605; Brush Creek Coal & M. Co. v. Morgan-Gardner Ele. Co. 136 F. 505; Fon......
-
Louden Machinery Co. v. American Malleable Iron Co.
...case called to my attention, upholding plaintiff's contention, is one decided on the circuit by Judge Grosscup, in the case of Houston v. Filer (C.C.) 85 F. 757. But that case is not authoritative, and, standing alone, it does, I cannot follow it. Nor is the other case cited by plaintiff's ......
-
Smith v. Farbenfabriken of Elberfeld Co.
... ... Lumbermen's Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 197 U.S. 407, ... 415, 25 Sup.Ct. 483, 49 L.Ed. 810; Houston v. Filer & ... Stowell Co. (C.C.) 85 F. 757, 758; American Steel & ... Wire Co. v. Speed, 110 ... ...