Riddle v. New York, L. E. & W R. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1889 |
| Citation | 39 F. 290 |
| Parties | RIDDLE et al. v. NEW YORK, L.E. & W.R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
George Shiras, Jr., for the motion.
James L. Black, contra.
Before McKENNAN and ACHESON, JJ.
This is an action brought for the recovery of damages for the alleged violation by the defendant, The New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company, of the act of congress to regulate commerce, approved February 4, 1887. Two of the plaintiffs are citizens of the state of Illinois, and the defendant is a corporation constituted under the laws of the state of New York. The ground of the motion to set aside the service of the writ of summons is that the defendant corporation 'is not an inhabitant of the Western district of Pennsylvania and that this court has therefore no jurisdiction in said case against the said company. ' In support of the motion the defendant relies upon that clause of the act of congress approved March 3, 1887, (24 St.at Large, 552,) and re-enacted August 13, 1888, (25 St.at Large, 433, 434,) which provides as follows:
'But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action before a circuit or district court; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states suits shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.'
The marshal's return shows that the defendant company was summoned by service upon 'Samuel Woodside, agent of said company, at their office in the city of Pittsburgh;' and the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which for the present purpose must be accepted as true, sets forth that the defendant company is doing business in the Western district of Pennsylvania, and has a permanent office in the city of Pittsburgh, in said district, with an officer or agent duly appointed thereto in charge of the defendant's business that under certain recited written traffic contracts it acquired and possesses the right to transport freight over the lines of the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company which in part are located within said district; that the defendant's own railroad is in part constructed within said district, and has for years past been, and is now, operated by the defendant company, with offices established thereon and officers appointed thereto, regularly and permanently in charge of the business on said line of road; and, further, that the defendant is, and from about May 1, 1883, has been, the lessee of the New York, Pennsylvania & Ohio Railroad, which in part is constructed through said district, and that the same has since been, and now is, operated by the defendant company, with offices permanently established thereon, and officers duly appointed thereto, in charge of the business thereof. Such being the facts, we are called upon to decide whether the defendant company is exempt from suit brought in this court.
Without undertaking to cite the numerous cases (federal and state) bearing upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neirbo Co v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation
...614; H.Rep. No. 1078, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. 10 10 Cong.Rec. 1304—1305; 14 Cong.Rec. 1270; 15 Cong.Rec. 4909. 11 Riddle v. New York R. Co., C.C., W.D.Pa., 1889, 39 F. 290; Consolidated Store-Service Co. v. Lamson Consol. Store-Service Co., C.C.Mass.,1890, 41 F. 833, approvingly cited in Haig......
-
Toulmin v. James Mfg. Co., 2235.
...R. Co., C.C., 49 F. 297; Patten v. Dodge Mfg. Co., D.C., 23 F.2d 852; Dodge Mfg. Co. v. Patten, 7 Cir., 60 F.2d 676; Riddle v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., C.C., 39 F. 290, and Consolidated Store-Service v. Lamson Consolidated Store-Service, C.C., 41 F. 833. Certain of these cases are disti......
-
Overman Wheel Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co.
...judges of the third circuit, but it is substantially in accordance with the views of the circuit judge of the first circuit. Riddle v. Railroad Co., 39 F. 290; Consolidated Store Service Co. v. Lamson etc., Co., 41 F. 833. There is one method by which the defendant could have become a citiz......
-
East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Atlanta & F. R. Co.
...although the principal office was located in another district. This is reported in 38 F. 449, and was followed in the case of Riddle v. Railroad Co., 39 F. 290. It appears to be true that where there is the proper diversity of citizenship which will give the circuit court of the United Stat......