Ohio River Contract Company v. Honorable Thomas Gordon, No. 594

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWhite
PartiesOHIO RIVER CONTRACT COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. HONORABLE THOMAS R. GORDON, Judge Jefferson Circuit Court
Decision Date21 May 1917
Docket NumberNo. 594

244 U.S. 68
37 S.Ct. 599
61 L.Ed. 997
OHIO RIVER CONTRACT COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

HONORABLE THOMAS R. GORDON, Judge Jefferson Circuit Court.

No. 594.
Argued and submitted April 9, 1917.
Decided May 21, 1917.

Page 69

Messrs. W. Overton Harris and A. E. Richards for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Matthew O'Doherty and Morton K. Yonts for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

In July, 1914, one Haines sued the Ohio River Contract Company, the plaintiff in error, and Swisher, one of its employees, in the circuit court of Jefferson county, Kentucky, to recover damages resulting from personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the defendants while Haines was in the employ of the company. The defendant company by appropriate pleadings challenged the power of the court to entertain the suit, both because of the want of jurisdiction over the corporation and over the subject-matter of the suit. Briefly the facts were these:

The Contract Company was a corporation organized

Page 70

under the laws of Indiana, and had its principal place of business in that state. At the time in question it was engaged within the geographical limits of the state of Kentucky in constructing, under a contract with the United States government, a canal with locks and dam on the Ohio river on a piece of land known as the Canal Reservation, acquired by the United States by purchase or condemnation from the state of Kentucky with the consent of its legilature. While most of the work under the contract was performed on the land thus acquired, the earth and rocks excavated in the construction of the canal were hauled over railroad tracks laid by the defendant company on land outside of the Canal Reservation, and, through an arrangement with the Kentucky & Indiana Terminal Railway Company, were dumped on its property in the state of Kentucky. The accident which gave rise to the injuries complained of occurred in the course of the work on the Canal Reservation. In conformity with a statute of Kentucky the company had designated an agent in the state upon whom process might be served in the event suits were brought against it in the state. The summons issued in the cause was served on the designated agent when he was on the land of the United States, but subsequently an alias summons was served on him at his home in Louisville.

Under these facts it was insisted the court was without jurisdiction (a)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 18-15499
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 19, 2022
    ...jurisdiction over the defendant, the state court may also hear the action. Mater, 200 F.2d at 123 (citing Ohio River Cont. Co. v. Gordon, 244 U.S. 68 (1917)). [6] The other claims raised by the Counties are analogous. For its trespass claim, San Mateo claims that the Energy Companies caused......
  • Hoskins v. Maricle, No. 2002-SC-0579-MR (KY 12/16/2004), No. 2002-SC-0579-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • December 16, 2004
    ...against which there [is] no other adequate remedy and to preserve the orderly administration of the laws." (emphasis added)), aff'd, 244 U.S. 68 (1917). Gordon also held that the "inadequate remedy by appeal" requirement applied whether the petition sought to prohibit the lower court from p......
  • Gulf Offshore Company v. Mobil Oil Corporation, No. 80-590
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1981
    ...a personal injury suit concerning events occurring in the territory and governed by federal law. Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon, 244 U.S. 68, 37 S.Ct. 599, 61 L.Ed. 997 (1917). See 16 U.S.C. § 457 (personal injury and wrongful-death actions involving events occurring "within a national p......
  • Hoskins v. Maricle, No. 2002-SC-0579-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • August 26, 2004
    ...against which there [is] no other adequate remedy and to preserve the orderly administration of the laws." (emphasis added)), aff'd, 244 U.S. 68, 37 S.Ct. 599, 61 L.Ed. 997 (1917). Gordon also held that the "inadequate remedy by appeal" requirement applied whether the petition sought to pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 18-15499
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 19, 2022
    ...jurisdiction over the defendant, the state court may also hear the action. Mater, 200 F.2d at 123 (citing Ohio River Cont. Co. v. Gordon, 244 U.S. 68 (1917)). [6] The other claims raised by the Counties are analogous. For its trespass claim, San Mateo claims that the Energy Companies caused......
  • Hoskins v. Maricle, No. 2002-SC-0579-MR (KY 12/16/2004), No. 2002-SC-0579-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • December 16, 2004
    ...against which there [is] no other adequate remedy and to preserve the orderly administration of the laws." (emphasis added)), aff'd, 244 U.S. 68 (1917). Gordon also held that the "inadequate remedy by appeal" requirement applied whether the petition sought to prohibit the lower court from p......
  • Gulf Offshore Company v. Mobil Oil Corporation, No. 80-590
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1981
    ...a personal injury suit concerning events occurring in the territory and governed by federal law. Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon, 244 U.S. 68, 37 S.Ct. 599, 61 L.Ed. 997 (1917). See 16 U.S.C. § 457 (personal injury and wrongful-death actions involving events occurring "within a national p......
  • Hoskins v. Maricle, No. 2002-SC-0579-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • August 26, 2004
    ...against which there [is] no other adequate remedy and to preserve the orderly administration of the laws." (emphasis added)), aff'd, 244 U.S. 68, 37 S.Ct. 599, 61 L.Ed. 997 (1917). Gordon also held that the "inadequate remedy by appeal" requirement applied whether the petition sought to pro......
  • 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