Preston v. Fire-Extinguisher Mfg. Co.

• Citation: 36 F. 721
• Parties: PRESTON v. FIRE-EXTINGUISHER MANUF'G. CO. et al.
• Decision Date: 05 November 1888
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

36 F. 721

PRESTON v. FIRE-EXTINGUISHER MANUF'G. CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois.

November 5, 1888

Munday Evarts & Adcock, for complainant.

Banning & Banning & Payson, for defendants.

BLODGETT J.

These cases are now before me upon a plea filed in each cause to the jurisdiction of the court. The plea sets up by way of challenge to the jurisdiction of the court the fact that this defendant, the Fire-Extinguisher Manufacturing Company, at the time of the filing of the bill of complaint, was a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York; that it has its principal office, and keeps its books of account, in that city; and that no stockholder, officer, or director resides in this district or state; that said company was not prior to nor at the date of the filing of the bill of complaint an inhabitant of the Northern district of Illinois, or of the state of Illinois. In the case of Manufacturing Co. v Manufacturing Co., 34 F. 818, before me in March last, I had occasion to examine this question, and there came to the conclusion that, under the act of March 3, 1887,-- and the same holds good in regard to the act as explained and modified by the act of August 13, 1888,-- a non-resident corporation cannot be sued in this district; that is, a corporation not a resident of this district cannot be sued here merely by service upon an agent or officer. The opinion in that case has been published, and counsel are familiar with it, so it is hardly necessary to quote from it. It is enough to say that the act of 1887 requires suit to be brought in the district whereof the defendant is an inhabitant, but drops the provision in prior statutes upon the subject, that he may also be sued in any district where he may be found at the time of the serving of the process. I have re-examined that question in the light of suggestions made by counsel for complainant, and still adhere to the conclusion there announced, that a corporation created and existing solely under the laws of another state, and having its principal office and place of business in another state and district, cannot be said to be an inhabitant of this district, and be sued here, even although such corporation may do business in this district through agents, except possibly in cases where the jurisdiction depends solely on citizenship. The agents can undoubtedly be sued here, if the...