Parks Co. v. City of Decatur, Illinois
Decision Date | 15 June 1905 |
Docket Number | 1,385. |
Citation | 138 F. 550 |
Parties | PARKS CO. v. CITY OF DECATUR, ILLINOIS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
D. W Sanders and Wm. Furlong, for plaintiff in error.
C. C Walters, J. H. Latham, and Albert S. Brandeis, for defendant in error.
Before LURTON and SEVERENS, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff in error, a corporation of Kentucky, instituted this action against the city of Decatur, a municipal corporation of Illinois, by petition conforming to the Civil Code of Practice of Kentucky, in the Circuit Court for Jefferson county in the last-named state, and attached a fund in the German Insurance Bank of Louisville. A warning order was issued summoning the city of Decatur to appear. The writ of attachment was served on the bank, with a notice that the object of the action was to attach all money, choses in action, property, or other evidence of debt in its possession belonging to the city of Decatur. In due season the principal defendant filed its petition and bond for removal of the cause, on the ground of diversity of citizenship of the parties, into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky. When the cause reached that court it was assigned to the law docket. The bank filed its answer as garnishee, admitting that it held a fund of $3,000 which was claimed by the city of Decatur by virtue of a check drawn by the plaintiff in favor of the city of Decatur and certified by the bank.
The grounds of the action, as stated in the petition of the plaintiff, were that the plaintiff had on September 16, 1902 made a bid or proposal to the defendant for making an improvement of one of its streets for a certain price, and as evidence of its good faith, had deposited with the city a certified check for $3,000; that afterwards the board of local improvements of the city declared the said bid null and void, and forfeited said check, and thereupon the city unlawfully, without cause, and without giving to the plaintiff any notice or opportunity to be heard, appropriated the said check to its own use, and thereby deprived the plaintiff of this, its said property, without due process of law. And thereupon the petition proceeds to state, 'that, by reason of the facts herein set out, the defendant is justly indebted to this plaintiff for money had and received without consideration therefor, that its said claim is just, that plaintiff ought to recover thereon said sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000), and that the defendant is a foreign corporation of the state of Kentucky. ' The certified check mentioned in this petition is the same certified check mentioned in the answer of the garnishee.
The cause having been docketed in the court below, the defendant, appearing specially for that purpose, filed a demurrer to the petition, showing cause in the language following: 'That this court has not jurisdiction of the person of defendant or of the subject-matter of this suit, or of the res or thing attached herein. ' And the defendant moved that the cause be dismissed. Concurrently, the plaintiff moved that the cause be remanded to the state court. The court denied the motions to remand and to dismiss, and overruled the demurrer. Thereupon the defendant, not waiving its objection to the jurisdiction, answered the petition. It is unnecessary to set out the answer in full. It is sufficient for the purposes of the case to say that it claimed to have lawfully forfeited and appropriated the check for $3,000 by virtue of the statutes of Illinois relating to contracts for the making of public improvements by the municipalities of that state. Hurd's Rev. St. Ill. c. 24, as amended by Act May 9, 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 113). Sections 76 and 77, as amended by the act of 1901, provide as follows:
The default of the plaintiff, upon which the defendant had forfeited and appropriated the check, consisted in the alleged failure of the plaintiff to execute within the stipulated time a proper contract for the performance of the work, and give a proper bond therefor.
A stipulation waiving a jury trial was filed, the facts were agreed upon, and the cause submitted to the court. Because of the judgment finally entered, it is needless to recapitulate the agreed facts. The court made certain findings of law concerning the jurisdictional question as well as the merits. In view of the judgment, these latter-- those concerning the merits-- may also be passed over. The judgment entered by direction of the court was as follows:
To each part of this judgment the plaintiff excepted.
It appears that the opinion of the court in respect to its jurisdiction, given at the hearing of the demurrer, was changed by further consideration, and the question for us is whether its final conclusion is right. The jurisdiction of the court below depended on the jurisdiction of the state court from which the cause was removed. No doubt is entertained that when the defendant is a private citizen of another state, and the plaintiff is either an individual or a corporation having an office and doing business in Kentucky the statutes of the latter state are sufficient to give the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Public Utility Dist. No. 2
...be sued outside its own geographical bounds, and distinguished three cases thought relevant on this issue. Parks Co. v. City of Decatur, Ill., C.C.A.6, 1905, 138 F. 550, 553-554; Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee Dist. v. Bodkin, 1902, 108 Tenn. 700, 708-710, 69 S.W. 270, 271-272 (thi......
-
Markham v. City of Newport News, Va.
...the cause of action; that is, whether it be tort or contract. O'Toole v. United States, D.C.Del., 106 F.Supp. 804, 809; Parks Co. v. City of Decatur, 6 Cir., 138 F. 550. In such cases venue may be jurisdictional. Thus, it is the law in Virginia that where the sole forum for a suit against t......
-
Oklahoma City v. District Court of Thirteenth Judicial Dist.
... ... Parks Co. v. City of Decatur (C. C ... A.) 138 F. 550. Its history in this state arose prior to ... ...
-
E. Union Co. of Del., Inc. v. Moffat Tunnel Improvement Dist.
...is liable to suit only in the State of its creation. Many of the authorities are collected in Parks v. City of Decatur (C. C. A.) 138 F. 550; Marshall v. Kansas City, 95 Kan. 548, 148 P. 637, L. R. A. 1915F, 1025 and note. We do not understand that this principle is denied by the plaintiff—......