Railway Company v. Real Estate Trust Company of Philadelphia
| Decision Date | 14 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 212,WASHINGTON-VIRGINIA,212 |
| Citation | 35 S.Ct. 818,59 L.Ed. 1262,238 U.S. 185 |
| Parties | RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. REAL ESTATE TRUST COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William A. Glasgow, Jr., Norman Grey, and John S. Barbour for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John G. Johnson and Joseph de F. Junkin for defendant in error.
This case is here upon the single question of the jurisdiction of the United States district court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania to entertain the action. The suit was begun by the Real Estate Trust Company of Philadelphia, against the Washington-Virginia Railway Company, a corporation of the state of Virginia, to recover a judgment on certain bonds made by the Washington, Alexandria, & Mt. Vernon Railway Company, also a Virginia corporation, payment of which, it was alleged, had been assumed by the Washington-Virginia Railway Company. The summons in the action was served upon the president of the defendant railway company, at its office in Philadelphia, by handing a true and attested copy of the summons to the president, at such office.
There is no question that the president was the proper officer to serve, and that he was duly served with process. The contention of the plaintiff in error is that the service is void and the court without jurisdiction because at the time of the service of process the defendant corporation was not doing business in the eastern district of Pennsylvania, wherein service was made. As this court has had frequent occasion to say, each case of this kind must depend upon its own facts, and the question is whether the defendant corporation had submitted itself to the local jurisdiction and was present therein so as to warrant service of process upon it. See St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Alexandria, 227 U. S. 218, and previous cases in this court cited on page 226, 57 L. ed. 486, 488, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 245.
The district court found certain facts, from which it appears: The defendant is the successor to two electric railway companies, one of which was the Washington Alexandria, & Mount Vernon Railway Company, which issued the bonds upon which the present suit was brought. The defendant company operates electric railway lines from Mount Vernon to Alexandria, in the state of Virginia, and from that city to Washington, in the District of Columbia. Under the laws of Virginia, the defendant company might have offices outside the state. The Virginia office of the company, under the laws of Virginia, must be kept in that state, and was at Mount Vernon, where there was a ticket agent, and where the annual meetings of the stockholders were held. The company maintained a general office at Washington, District of Columbia, where the business of conducting the physical operation of the road was carried on through its manager. At the Washington office the cash books of the company were kept, showing daily receipts, collection of accounts due, operating record, pay roll, time record, and statement of claims accruing and their payment as made. No books of the company concerning its business were kept at the Mount Vernon office. The commercial account of the company was kept at the Commercial National Bank, of Washington, District of Columbia, where the receipts from the operation of the road were deposited, and where checks for operating expenses were drawn on that bank. The company also kept three smaller accounts in Alexandria, Virginia.
For some time prior to the merger, the Washington, Alexandria, & Mount Vernon Railway Company maintained an office in the Real Estate Trust Building, at Philadelphia, which office was leased by the president of that company, one Clarence P. King, who subsequently became president of the merged company, and who was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Catlettsburg, Ky., v. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ohio
... ... involved in the cases of American Bank & Trust Co. v ... Federal Reserve Bank (C.C.A.) 269 F ... First. Was the Pacific Company doing business in the state ... of Texas? ... Philadelphia and had in charge thereof a district freight and ... call for is a real dualism. According thereto, therefore, the ... Washington Ry. Co. v. Real Estate Trust Co., 238 ... U.S. 185, 35 Sup.Ct. 818, 59 ... corporation. It operated electric railway lines from Mt ... Vernon to Alexandria, in ... ...
-
General Inv. Co. v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co.
... ... Investment Company, a Maine corporation, against The Lake ... Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, a corporation of ... New York, ... Company), the Central Trust Company of New York, and three ... individual ... 550, 56 L.Ed. 857; ... Philadelphia Railway v. McKibbin, 243 U.S. 264, 265, ... 37 ... 1479; Washington-Virginia Railway v. Real Estate ... Trust, 238 U.S. 185, 186, 35 Sup.Ct ... ...
-
State v. W. T. Rawleigh Co
..."doing business" can be laid down and that each case must be determined upon its own circumstances. Washington-Virginia Railway Co. v. Trust Co., 23S U. S. 1S5, 35 S. Ct. 818, 59 L. Ed. 1262; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579, 34 S. Ot. 944, 58 L. Ed. 1479; Green v. 0.,......
-
Erving v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
...243 U. S. 264, 37 S. Ct. 280, 61 L. Ed. 710; F. & M. Bank v. Fed. Reserve Bank (D. C.) 286 F. 566; Washington Ry. Co. v. Real Estate Trust Co., 238 U. S. 185, 35 S. Ct. 818, 59 L. Ed. 1262. This authorizes the inference that it is present. With this fundamental understanding as to "doing bu......