Munter v. Weil Corset Co, No. 255

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcKENNA
Citation261 U.S. 276,43 S.Ct. 347,67 L.Ed. 652
Docket NumberNo. 255
Decision Date26 February 1923
PartiesMUNTER v. WEIL CORSET CO., Inc

261 U.S. 276
43 S.Ct. 347
67 L.Ed. 652
MUNTER

v.

WEIL CORSET CO., Inc.

No. 255.
Argued Jan. 22, 1923.
Decided Feb. 26, 1923.

Mr. Elijah N. Zoline, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Benjamin Slade, of New York City, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

Action in the District Court for the District of Connecticut, by the Weil Corset Company, a corporation of Connecticut, against Charles Munter, a citizen and resident of New York, for breach of contract; damages being laid at $7,273.26, with interest from November 13, 1914. Service upon Munter was made in New York City.

The case is between citizens of different states and involves more than $3,000, exclusive of

Page 277

interest and costs. It therefore is within the general jurisdiction of the District Courts, Section 24 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 991). The plaintiff being a resident of the district in which the suit was brought, the defendant could not object to the venue or place of suit. Section 51, Judicial Code Comp. St. § 1033). Comp v. Gress, 250 U. S. 308, 39 Sup. Ct. 478, 63 L. Ed. 997; Lee v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. (January 22, 1923) 260 U. S. 653, 43 Sup. Ct. 230, 67 L. Ed. ——.

But service of process was made upon Munter in New York, and he availed himself of the fact by filing on August 30, 1918, before the return day, by his attorney, the following motion:

'The defendant moves that the above-entitled case be erased from the docket, because it appears from the writ and complaint therein that the defendant was at the time of the commencement of said action a resident of the state of New York, and it appears from the return thereon that service of said writ and complaint was not otherwise made upon him than by leaving a copy of said writ and complaint with him in the borough of Manhattan, city, county, and state of New York.'

The court denied the motion, on the ground that it 'contained no prayer for judgment'; a prayer for judgment, it was held, being necessary under the statutes of Connecticut in pleas 'to the jurisdiction, or in attachment, or both,' and that the condition was made applicable to the District Court by the Conformity Act (Section 914, Revised Statutes of United States [Comp. St. § 1537]). That act provides:

'That the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding in * * * other than equity and admiralty causes in the Circuit and District Co rts [of the United States] shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania Co, No. 11
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1945
    ...Picquet v. Swan, Fed.Cas. No. 11,134, 5 Mason 35, 39 et seq. And such has been the general rule ever since. Munter v. Weil Corset Co., 261 U.S. 276, 279, 43 S.Ct. 347 (349), 67 L.Ed. 652.' It follows that we should not in the exercise of our discretion remit Georgia to the federal district ......
  • Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, No. 739
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1925
    ...v. Swan, Page 623 5 Mason, 35, 39 et seq., Fed Cas. No. 11,134. And such has been the general rule ever since. Munter v. Weil Corset Co., 261 U. S. 276, 279, 43 S. Ct. 347, 67 L. Ed. 652. No distinction has been drawn between the case where the plaintiff is the Government and where he is a ......
  • Hurley v. Wells-Newton Nat. Corporation, No. 3465.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • April 1, 1931
    ...the defendant is not bound to conform to the state procedure established for that purpose. In the case of Munter v. Weil Co., 261 U. S. 276, 43 S. Ct. 347, 348, 67 L. Ed. 652, the question was one of jurisdiction, claimed to be defective by reason of "want of jurisdiction in the court over ......
  • Montgomery, Zukerman, Davis, Inc. v. Diepenbrock, No. IP88-242-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • November 21, 1988
    ...in the Southern District of Indiana because it is the district in which "all plaintiffs" reside. See, e.g. Munter v. Weil Corset Co., 261 U.S. 276, 43 S.Ct. 347, 67 L.Ed. 652 (1923); Local 15 of Independent Workers of Noble County v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 273 F.Su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania Co, No. 11
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1945
    ...Picquet v. Swan, Fed.Cas. No. 11,134, 5 Mason 35, 39 et seq. And such has been the general rule ever since. Munter v. Weil Corset Co., 261 U.S. 276, 279, 43 S.Ct. 347 (349), 67 L.Ed. 652.' It follows that we should not in the exercise of our discretion remit Georgia to the federal district ......
  • Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, No. 739
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1925
    ...v. Swan, Page 623 5 Mason, 35, 39 et seq., Fed Cas. No. 11,134. And such has been the general rule ever since. Munter v. Weil Corset Co., 261 U. S. 276, 279, 43 S. Ct. 347, 67 L. Ed. 652. No distinction has been drawn between the case where the plaintiff is the Government and where he is a ......
  • Hurley v. Wells-Newton Nat. Corporation, No. 3465.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • April 1, 1931
    ...the defendant is not bound to conform to the state procedure established for that purpose. In the case of Munter v. Weil Co., 261 U. S. 276, 43 S. Ct. 347, 348, 67 L. Ed. 652, the question was one of jurisdiction, claimed to be defective by reason of "want of jurisdiction in the court over ......
  • Montgomery, Zukerman, Davis, Inc. v. Diepenbrock, No. IP88-242-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • November 21, 1988
    ...in the Southern District of Indiana because it is the district in which "all plaintiffs" reside. See, e.g. Munter v. Weil Corset Co., 261 U.S. 276, 43 S.Ct. 347, 67 L.Ed. 652 (1923); Local 15 of Independent Workers of Noble County v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 273 F.Su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT