Sartor v. United Gas Public Service Co.

• Decision Date: 09 May 1933
• Docket Number: No. 2385.,2385.
• Citation: 3 F. Supp. 946
• Parties: SARTOR et al. v. UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

3 F. Supp. 946

SARTOR et al. v. UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., Inc.

No. 2385.

District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Monroe Division.

May 9, 1933.

G. P. Bullis, of Vidalia, La., for plaintiffs.

Sholers & Gunby, of Monroe, La., for defendant.

DAWKINS, District Judge.

This is a transitory action upon alleged contracts, wherein the plaintiffs seek to recover a larger amount for natural gas withdrawn from their lands than was paid under mineral leases described and attached to the petition. Jurisdiction in this court is based solely upon diversity of citizenship.

Defendant has excepted to the venue in the Monroe division, on the ground that "it is a corporation, chartered under the laws of Delaware, with a domicile in the state of Louisiana, in Caddo Parish, within the Shreveport division of this court and with an agent designated for the service of process, who is a resident and domiciled in said parish and division aforesaid, to whom citation and process herein was addressed and upon whom service was made."

The petition alleges that the plaintiffs are all citizens and residents of Richland parish, which is in the Monroe division, and the question is as to whether the defendant, who is a citizen of another state where jurisdiction of the cause of action rests wholly upon diversity of citizenship, can insist that it be sued in the division where it has its principal place of business and where the officer designated for service of process resides. Defendant relies upon section 114 of title 28, U. S. C., 28 USCA § 114 (Jud. Code § 53), which provides: "When a district contains more than one division, every suit not of a local nature against a single defendant must be brought in the division where he resides. * * *"

Two cases have been cited, one by this court, which is Sanders v. Royal Indemnity Co., 33 F.(2d) 512, and the other being In re Hamrick (D. C.) 175 F. 279, 281. In the first of these cases, the plaintiff was a resident of the Shreveport division and the defendant, a nonresident corporation, had its office and Louisiana agent for service of citation in the Alexandria division, while the suit was brought in the Monroe division. No decisions were cited by either side in that case and none could be found by the court at the time, as stated in the memorandum opinion. It was decided that the case should not be dismissed and was ordered transferred to the Alexandria division. In the case of In re Hamrick the court had followed the course adopted by this court in the Sanders Case; that is, transferred the cause from one division to another. Authority has now been found to support this view, to wit, International Bank & Trust Co. v. Scott (C. C. A. Fifth Circuit) 159 F. 58, and U. S. v. Eddy (C. C.) 28 F. 226. A closer examination of the law would also indicate that the section of the Code relied upon by defendant has no application to a defendant who is not a citizen and resident of the district. See Enc. of Fed. Proced. vol. 2, § 361, wherein it is said: "This provision (section 53 of Judicial Code) has no application in cases in which the defendant is not a resident of the district nor does it impose any limitation as to divisions on plaintiff suing in his own residence district."

The text is sustained by the cases cited in the footnotes. In Reich v. Tennessee Copper Co. (D. C.) 209 F. 880, 881, the plaintiff was a citizen of Tennessee and resident of the Northern division of the Eastern district of said state, while the defendant was a New Jersey corporation, operating copper mines in the Southern division, and the action was one in damages for personal injuries received at the mines. The exception insisted that the suit should have been filed in the Northern division where the plaintiff resided instead of the Southern division. In disposing of the matter, Judge Sanford, afterwards a Justice of the Supreme Court, said:

"The jurisdiction of this cause in the Southern Division of the Eastern District of Tennessee is not taken away, even if the plaintiff be a resident of the Northern Division of the district, by the provision of secton 53 of the Judicial Code 28 USCA § 114, that:

"`When a district contains more than one division, every suit not of a local nature against a single defendant must be brought in the division where he resides.'

"This provision...