Oliver American Trading Co v. United States of Mexico
| Citation | 44 S.Ct. 390,264 U.S. 440,68 L.Ed. 778 |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 662,662 |
| Parties | OLIVER AMERICAN TRADING CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES OF MEXICO et al |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Alfred Hayes and Robert F. Greacen, both of New York City, for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Jerome S. Hess, of New York City, and George F. Snyder, of Washington, D. C., for defendants in error.
The Oliver American Trading Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, brought this suit, in the Supreme Court of New York, against the United States of Mexico and the National Railways of Mexico. Service was made by attaching tangible personal property and credits within the state alleged to belong to the defendants and summons. In the state court, the government of Mexico, appearing specially, moved seasonably that the attachment be quashed and that the suit be dismissed. Before the motion was heard, the case was removed on its petition to the federal court for southern New York. There Mexico, again appearing specially, procured a rule that the plaintiff show cause why the attachment should not be vacated and the suit dismissed, upon the ground that it is 'an independent sovereign nation, * * * immune from process of the courts, except upon its consent.'
The plaintiff asserted that, at the time when the suit was begun and when the rule was returnable, Mexico had not been recognized by our government, and contended that, being a nonrecognized foreign government, it was suable as a foreign corporation under subdivision 7 of section 7 of the Civil Practice Act of New York. It was conceded that National Railways of Mexico is merely a name for the system of railroads controlled and operated by the Mexican government. After the hearing on the motion, but before entry of the judgment below, Mexico was duly recognized by the United States and diplomatic relations between the two governments were resumed. Thereupon, and solely upon this ground, the District Court held that Mexico was entitled to immunity from suit in the courts of the United States of America, unless upon its own consent, granted the motion to vacate the attachment and dismiss the suit, and issued the certificate of a jurisdictional question provided for in section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215). Here, the defendant in error moves to dismiss this writ of error for want of jurisdiction in this court, on the ground that the case below did not present the question of jurisdiction of the District Court as a federal court.
The fact that the District Judge issued the certificate does not relieve this court from the duty of determining for itself whether the question which was certified is in truth one of the jurisdiction of the lower court as a federal court. Bogart v. Southern...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Al Odah v. U.S.
... ... F. AL ODAH, et al., Appellants, ... UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees ... No ... not commit any violent act against any American person, nor espouse any violent act against any ... of Los Angeles for actions occurring in Mexico in violation of the "customary international ... 286, 286-87, 23 L.Ed. 709 (1875); see Oliver Am. Trading Co. v. Mexico, 264 U.S. 440, 442-43, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte
... ... in Bankruptcy of New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Company, a Corporation, and Guy A ... Article I, of the Constitution of the United States, ... therefore, a permanent writ of ... Starr Piano Co., 49 S.W.2d 1078; ... American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156, 53 ... Oliver Amer. Trading Co., Inc., v. U.S. of M., 264 ... ...
-
Oliver American T. Co. v. Government of the US of Mexico, 96.
...St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1215a), which may also be found in the margin.2 The Supreme Court (Oliver American Trading Co. v. United States of Mexico, 264 U. S. 440, 44 S. Ct. 390, 68 L. Ed. 778), holding that the case was improperly before it, said: "The fact that the District Judge issued the ......
-
Lyders v. Lund
...comity and general law rather than to lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit. Oliver American Trading Co. v. U. S. of Mexico, 264 U. S. 440, 44 S. Ct. 390, 68 L. Ed. 778. Judicial Code, § 24, subd. 1(c), 28 USCA § 41(1) (c), grants to the District Courts jurisdiction of a ......
-
Customary international law as U.S. law: a critique of the revisionist and intermediate positions and a defense of the modern position.
...on the validity of a foreign marriage), cited in Attrill, 146 U.S. at 683. (144) See Bellia & Clark, supra note 21, at 20-22. (145) 264 U.S. 440 (146) Judicial Code of 1911, Pub. L. No. 61-475, [section] 238, 36 Stat. 1087, 1157, amended by Act of Jan. 28, 1915, Pub. L. No. 63-241, [sec......