Jackson v. Delaware River Amusement Co.

• Decision Date: 08 July 1904
• Docket Number: 20.
• Citation: 131 F. 134
• Parties: JACKSON et ux. v. DELAWARE RIVER AMUSEMENT CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

131 F. 134

JACKSON et ux. v. DELAWARE RIVER AMUSEMENT CO.

No. 20.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

July 8, 1904

Myles Higgins, for plaintiffs.

Mark W Collett and Michael J. Ryan, for defendant.

HOLLAND District Judge.

This is a suit to recover for a personal injury to Clara Jackson against the defendant, a New Jersey corporation, which was instituted in this district, and service of the writ of summons was made upon Mr. Thompson, the president of the company, while engaged in business in Philadelphia not connected with the said corporation, and at an office of another and different corporation, totally distinct from the one named above. It nowhere appears that the defendant corporation was engaged in business in the state of Pennsylvania; in fact it is denied by the affidavit that it is so engaged. The return is as follows:

'At Philadelphia, in my district, served the within writ upon the Delaware River Amusement Company by giving a true and attested copy thereof to William J. Thompson, president of said company, and making known the contents of the same to him. So answers John B. Robinson, U.S. Marshal.'

This return, in view of the record in this case, would be insufficient upon its face upon the authority of Earl v Chesapeake Railroad Company (decided by Judge McPherson, in this court, Feb. 8, 1904) 127 F. 235, for the reason that neither the statement, summons, praecipe therefor, nor the return of the marshal recites that the said defendant corporation was transacting business in Pennsylvania; and while this may not be necessary in the local courts, in the federal courts, which are courts of limited jurisdiction, it is necessary that every jurisdictional fact must appear upon the record. This view is supported by the case of St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 350, 1 Sup.Ct. 354, 27 L.Ed. 222. Other cases in point decided in this district, are Scott v. Oil Company (C.C.) 120 F. 698, and Id., 122 F. 835.

A question of practice, however, is raised as to the proper method of bringing the matter before the court. A rule was granted upon the plaintiff to show cause why the summons should not be set aside upon affidavit made (not in the shape of a petition) by William J. Thompson, the president of the company, alleging that the defendant was engaged solely in business in New Jersey, and that it transacted no business in the state of Pennsylvania, and that service was made upon him, the deponent, while engaged in Philadelphia on private business not connected with that of the defendant corpor...