King v. Shepherd, 5.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 5.,5. |
| Parties | KING v. SHEPHERD et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Hardin & Barton, of Fort Smith, Ark., for R. E. King.
Pryor & Pryor, of Fort Smith, Ark., for A. W. Shepherd, doing business as A. W. Shepherd Bus Lines.
Daily & Woods, of Fort Smith, Ark., for Mutual Casualty Co.
R. E. King filed suit against A. W. Shepherd, doing business as A. W. Shepherd Bus Lines, on October 8, 1938, for damages as a result of personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by reason of an automobile accident occurring in the city of Fort Smith, Arkansas. The plaintiff was a citizen of Fort Smith, Arkansas, and the defendant was a citizen of the State of Oklahoma.
On October 13, 1938, the defendant, Shepherd, filed a third party complaint against the National Mutual Casualty Company as a third party defendant, alleging that the third party defendant carried a policy of insurance indemnifying Shepherd against loss by reason of automobile accidents and contracting to defend the said Shepherd against any suits filed against him as a result of such accidents. Shepherd alleges that the third party defendant has failed to fulfill the agreements of the insurance contract by refusing to defend in the action which King had filed. The ground upon which the jurisdiction of this court was invoked was a diversity of citizenship between the parties, the third party plaintiff alleging that he was a citizen and resident of the State of Missouri and the third party defendant was a citizen of the State of Oklahoma, and alleging, of course, the requisite jurisdictional amount.
To the third party complaint, The National Mutual Casualty Company, third party defendant, moved to dismiss the action against it for the reason that the Western District of Arkansas was not the proper venue in which said action could be brought. The movant sets forth: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corporation
...third-party defendants, see extensive discussion in Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport Corp., D.C.Conn., 29 F.Supp. 112; King v. Shepherd, D.C.W.D.Ark., 26 F.Supp. 357, without discussing ancillary jurisdiction; and cf. Tullgren v. Jasper, D.C. Md., 27 F.Supp. 413. Contra are Morrell v. Un......
-
United States v. Acord
...not on the fact that a new party was brought in, but upon the nature of the relief sought against the new party. In King v. Shepherd, D.C.Ark., 26 F. Supp. 357, Judge Ragon held that where the third-party proceeding brings in a new party defendant against whom an original proceeding could n......
-
Brandt v. Olson
...third-party proceedings is not required did not apply to the venue of the action in the third party proceedings. (Citing King v. Shepherd, D.C.1938, 26 F.Supp. 357, and Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport Corp., D.C. 1939, 29 F.Supp. 112. These cases are the ones most frequently cited in su......
-
Lewis v. United Air Lines Transport Corporation
...Jasper, D. C., 27 F.Supp. 413. In these cases, the question of venue seems not to have been directly involved. However, in King v. Shepherd, D. C., 26 F.Supp. 357, the decision was directly based upon an objection as to venue and the result reached seems to accord with my In each of the fou......