Robinson v. Coos Bay Pulp Corporation

Decision Date05 February 1945
Docket NumberNo. 8620.,8620.
Citation147 F.2d 512
PartiesROBINSON v. COOS BAY PULP CORPORATION.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Isaac S. Grossman, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

A. Allen Woodruff, of Philadelphia, Pa. (John N. Schaeffer, Jr., and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARIS and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.

MARIS, Circuit Judge.

We are called upon on this appeal to delimit the application of Section 51 of the Judicial Code, the federal venue statute.1 The plaintiff, a citizen of the State of New Jersey, brought suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the defendant, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington, for an accounting for commissions alleged to be in excess of $3,000 and for judgment. Service of the writ and complaint was made upon an officer-director of the defendant at his office in the City of Chester in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The defendant appeared specially and, pointing to the fact that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant resided in that district, moved to vacate and set aside the service of the writ and complaint. The District Court granted the motion and ordered that the service of the writ and complaint be set aside and vacated.

Aside from the question of proper venue the jurisdiction of the court is beyond dispute, since the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount involved exceeds $3,000. Although the defendant asserted in its motion that the court had no jurisdiction2 it is clear that the defense which it sought to invoke was that of improper venue rather than want of jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that Section 51 accords to the defendant a personal privilege respecting the venue of a suit against him which he may assert or waive at his election.3 Failure to assert the defense of improper venue seasonably has been held to amount to a waiver of it.4 In Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 1939, 308 U.S. 165, 60 S.Ct. 153, 84 L.Ed. 167, 128 A.L.R. 1437, it was held that the appointment by a foreign corporation, in compliance with a state statute, of an agent upon whom process may be served within the state amounts to a waiver of the federal venue statute and to a consent by the foreign corporation to be sued in a federal court within the state.

The rule of the Neirbo case is not, however, applicable to the facts with which we are here dealing. The Pennsylvania statute requires a foreign corporation which desires to do a local business to designate the Secretary of the Commonwealth as its agent to accept service of process within the state.5 The defendant has at no time made such designation. The plaintiff alleges, and supports his allegations with affidavits, that the defendant has in fact done business in Pennsylvania and urges that it would be inequitable to permit the defendant to profit by its wrongful failure to comply with the state statute. The question before us, however, is whether the defendant has waived the privilege conferred upon it by Section 51 not to be sued in the federal district courts sitting in Pennsylvania. We cannot undertake to determine the wholly collateral question as to whether the business done by the defendant in Pennsylvania was such as to impose upon it the duty to appoint the Secretary of the Commonwealth as its agent for service of process. The fact is that it has not done so and, therefore, has not by such action waived the venue statute.

The plaintiff contends, however, that it was not necessary for the defendant to evidence its consent to be sued in the state in any such positive way as by appointing an agent to receive service of process but that the mere doing of business in the state amounts to a waiver of the venue privilege accorded by Section 51. We cannot agree. In the case of In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 1895, 160 U. S. 221 at page 229, 16 S.Ct. 273, at page 275, 40 L.Ed. 402, the Supreme Court held that: "* * * a corporation, by doing business or appointing a general agent in a district other than that in which it is created, does not waive its right, if seasonably availed of, to insist that the suit should have been brought in the latter district." This rule, we think, is still the law and under it a foreign corporation merely by doing business in a state does not waive the protection of the federal venue statute.6

It has been suggested that the same reasons support the spelling out of a waiver by a foreign corporation of the venue privilege by virtue of the doing of local business as caused the majority of the Supreme Court in the Neirbo case to find a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • McCoy v. Siler
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 10, 1953
    ...that very distinction which led this court to a contrary result on the precise issue involved in the Knott case. Robinson v. Coos Bay Pulp Corp., 3 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 512. Two other Courts of Appeals have agreed with us.10 Insofar as the issue involved in those cases is analogous here, th......
  • Goldberg v. Wharf Constructers
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • October 8, 1962
    ...appoint a process agent as required by state law. Moss v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 149 F.2d 701 (2d Cir. 1945); Robinson v. Coos Bay Pulp Corp., 147 F.2d 512 (3d Cir. 1945); Knobloch v. M. W. Kellogg Co., 154 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1946). 3 See Reed v. Charizio, 183 F.Supp. 52, 53 (E.D.Va.1960......
  • Remington Rand, Inc. v. Knapp-Monarch Company, Civ. A. No. 19001.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • March 14, 1956
    ...corporation were residents of the state. 16 Moss v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 2 Cir., 1945, 149 F.2d 701; Robinson v. Coos Bay Pulp Corp., 3 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 512; see also: Knobloch v. M. W. Kellogg Co., 5 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 45. 17 See Moore, Commentaries on the U. S. Judicial Code,......
  • Knott Corporation v. Furman, 5589.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • October 27, 1947
    ...a state. We are advertent to the decisions in Cummer-Graham Co. v. Straight Side Basket Corp., 9 Cir., 136 F.2d 828; Robinson v. Coos Bay Pulp Corp., 3 Cir., 147 F.2d 512; and Moss v. A. C. L. R. Co., 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 701; In re Keasby & Mattison Co., 160 U.S. 221, 16 S.Ct. 273, 40 L.Ed. 40......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT