Still v. ROSSVILLE CRUSHED STONE COMPANY
| Decision Date | 29 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 16834.,16834. |
| Citation | 370 F.2d 324 |
| Parties | Hubert STILL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROSSVILLE CRUSHED STONE COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Joe Timberlake, Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellants.
Frank M. Gleason, Rossville, Ga. (Morgan & Garner, Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS and PECK, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellants are residents of the State of Georgia and brought this action for damages to their Georgia residence properties and for an injunction restraining the defendant-appellee Tennessee corporation from doing certain acts in Georgia in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship, and plaintiffs-appellants have perfected this appeal from an order of the District Court dismissing the cause for lack of jurisdiction.
The learned District Judge properly held that the doctrine announced in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), under which the substantive law of a state was held to be controlling upon a federal court sitting therein, has application. Plaintiffs-appellants argue that the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. does not have application because we are here concerned not with mere substantive law but with a jurisdictional issue, urging that no state by legislative action or judicial determination can destroy jurisdiction established by Congress or the Constitution. This argument makes it pertinent to point out the distinction between jurisdiction and venue. Jurisdiction is the power to adjudicate, while venue, which relates to the place where judicial authority may be exercised, is intended for the convenience of the litigants. Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165, 60 S.Ct. 153, 84 L.Ed. 167 (1939); see also 1 Barron & Holtzoff Federal Practice and Procedure (Wright Ed.), § 71. The power to adjudicate being here present, it becomes pertinent to determine whether under the law of Tennessee judicial authority could be there exercised over the subject matter of this cause.
In no situation could the law of the forum be more easily determined than here, since its law was recently established in a case involving two of the present plaintiffs-appellants seeking recovery for damages to a portion of the property alleged herein to have been damaged by blasting at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman
...place where judicial authority may be exercised, is intended for the convenience of the litigants." Still v. Rossville Crushed Stone Co., 370 F.2d 324, 325 (6th Cir.1966) (per curiam) (emphasis added) (citing Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165, 60 S.Ct. 153, 84 L.Ed. 1......
-
In re Harnischfeger Industries, Inc.
...place where judicial authority may be exercised, is intended for the convenience of the litigants." Still v. Rossville Crushed Stone Co., 370 F.2d 324, 325 (6th Cir.1966) (per curiam) (emphasis added). See also Robert E. Lee & Co., Inc. v. Veatch, 301 F.2d 434, 436 (4th Cir.1961) ("Venue is......
-
Miller v. Davis
...Indeed, our Circuit applied this view of Erie in Atkins v. Schmutz Mfg. Co., 372 F.2d 762 (6th Cir. 1967), and Still v. Rossville Crushed Stone Co., 370 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1966). York, however, is not the Supreme Court's final word on 'the policy of Erie.' In Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electr......
-
French v. Clinchfield Coal Co.
...15 S.Ct. 771, 39 L.Ed. 913 (1895); Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 13 S.Ct. 224, 36 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1892); Still v. Rossville Crushed Stone Co., 370 F.2d 324 (6th Cir. 1966); Pasos v. Pan American Airways, Inc., 229 F.2d 271 (2d Cir. 1956); Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Moore, 46 F.2d 959 (5t......