Page Co v. Macdonald, 308
| Decision Date | 09 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 308,308 |
| Citation | 261 U.S. 446,67 L.Ed. 737,43 S.Ct. 416 |
| Parties | PAGE CO. v. MACDONALD |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Asa P. French, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Weld A. Rollins, of Boston, Mass., for defendant in error.
The Page Company brought suit in the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts against the defendant in error for libel, constituted, it was alleged, by allegations in a certain bill of complaint which was filed by her against that company in a superior court of Massachusetts.
A question of jurisdiction in the sense of immunity from process is presented. Plaintiff in error is a Massa chusetts corporation; defendant in error, a resident and citizen of Leaksdale, Ontario, Canada.
The Page Company brought this suit against defendant in error, alleging her suit against it, the Page Company, was a deliberate and malicious libel; its statements having been made 'with full information and knowledge that they were false,' and for the purpose of injuring the company's reputation. Damages were prayed.
The facts are stipulated and are condensed by the District Court as follows:
The court decided 'that the plea in abatement is good and that the action must be abated'—citing Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U. S. 128, 37 Sup. Ct. 44, 61 L. Ed. 192; Larned v. Griffin (C. C.) 12 Fed. 590; Diamond v. Earle, 217 Mass. 499, 105 N. E. 363, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1178, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 984.
The Page Company, contesting the ruling and the application of the cases cited to sustain it, contends that immunity cannot be claimed and sustained from the judicial process of a different sovereignty.
In Diamond v. Earle and Stewart v. Ramsay, it is said both courts were exercising jurisdiction conferred by the same sovereignty. It is, necessarily, a condition of the contention, that the federal court in Massachusetts is a foreign court within the principle.
A federal court in a state is not foreign and antagonistic to a court of the state within the principle and, therefore, as said in Stewart v. Ramsay, supra:
'Suitors as well as witnesses, coming from another state or jurisdiction, are exempt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Severn v. Adidas Sportschuhfabriken
...circuit and district courts have consistently sustained the privilege. (Citations.)' (Id.) Thereafter, in Page Co. v. Macdonald (1922) 261 U.S. 446, 43 S.Ct. 416, 67 L.Ed. 737 the court affirmed a judgment entered after the District Court for the District of Massachusetts had sustained a pl......
-
Ryan v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
...upon court, and during a reasonable time in coming and going." Stewart, 242 U.S. at 129, 37 S.Ct. 44 ; see Page Co. v. Macdonald, 261 U.S. 446, 448, 43 S.Ct. 416, 67 L.Ed. 737 (1923). Nevertheless, the Court restated the rule twice in the early 1930s without explicitly limiting its scope to......
-
Ryan v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
...continued applicability, though this procedure was even less intrusive than a civil arrest. See Page Co. v. MacDonald, 261 U.S. 446, 448, 43 S.Ct. 416, 67 L.Ed. 737 (1923) (recognizing the importance of this privilege and the "necessity of its inflexibility"); Stewart v. Ramsay, 242 U.S. 12......
-
United States v. Shibley
...in the bill of complaint, and that the truth or falsity of the pleadings cannot be assumed. See Page v. MacDonald, supra, 261 U.S. 446 pages 448, 449, 43 S.Ct. 416 67 L.Ed. 737. But the test of the privilege is not the probable success or failure of the suit or proceeding in which the proce......