Stone v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co.
Decision Date | 27 March 1912 |
Docket Number | 3,859. |
Citation | 195 F. 832 |
Parties | STONE v. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
C. W Prince, for plaintiff.
Warner Dean, McLeod & Timmonds, for defendant.
This is a suit to recover damages for alleged personal injuries. The plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Wyandotte county, in the state of Kansas. The defendant is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Illinois. The ground upon which defendant seeks to remove the cause to this court is thus stated:
It is conceded that the defendant operates a portion of its line of railroad through this division and district; that it has complied with the laws of Missouri applicable to corporations foreign to the state; and that it has in this jurisdiction business offices and agents upon whom service of process may be made in conformity with the requirements of such laws. For all these reasons it asserts that it has here such a residence for jurisdictional purposes as is contemplated by the removal statute. Plaintiff in her motion to remand challenges the jurisdiction of this court, 'for the reason that the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the state of Kansas and the defendant a citizen and resident of the state of Illinois, and this cause is not one within the original jurisdiction of this court, hence this court cannot acquire jurisdiction by removal.'
In January, 1911, in the case of Elizabeth Wheeler, Plaintiff, v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, Defendant, this court had occasion to consider an application like this in all essential particulars. The memorandum opinion then handed down was not forwarded for publication. The conclusions reached at that time were thus stated:
. . . . .
The differences between that case and this in the matter of citizenship are that here the defendant is a citizen of Illinois instead of Kansas, and the plaintiff is a citizen of another state, instead of another judicial district of Missouri.
It has been brought to my attention that very recently a different conclusion has been reached in another district of this circuit; and for that reason this court is earnestly solicited to revise its former ruling. The respect which is due to the opinions of other courts, the desirability of harmony of decision, and the regard that should be accorded to the zeal and diligence of able and painstaking counsel have led me to give this question further and careful examination.
The main, if not the sole, contention upon which this removal is sought, is that in the matter of residence there is a fundamental and controlling difference between an individual and a corporation, particularly a railroad corporation. In fact, the differences asserted between railroad corporations and other corporations with less fixity of physical property are greater even than those between individuals and corporations of the latter class. It is urged that a railroad corporation, while having its citizenship and likewise a residence fixed by its act of incorporation, may, nevertheless, acquire still another residence for jurisdictional purposes dependent upon the location and nature of its business, and the character and permanency of its property there located. It is further insisted that the doctrine announced in Ex parte Wisner, 203 U.S. 449, 27 Sup.Ct. 150, 51 L.Ed. 264, should not be applied to cases of the character now under consideration, and, if so applied, introduces a new and startling departure in the matter of railroad litigation not contemplated by the Supreme Court, and never hitherto considered by that tribunal in its relation to this subject-matter. We may freely concede the plausibility and ingenuity of this argument, but must not be led to adopt it without a careful consideration of principles authoritatively established by the courts of last resort.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nickels v. Pullman Co.
...998, 999; Western Union Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co. (D.C.) 201 F. 932; Baldwin v. Pacific, etc., Co. (D.C.) 199 F. 291; Stone v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (D.C.) 195 F. 832; Odhner v. Northern Pac. Co. (C.C.) 188 F. Shawnee Bank v. Missouri etc. R. co. (C.C.) 175 F. 456; Baxter etc. v. Hammond......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... Kentucky. September 28, 1914 ... E. S ... Jouett, Henry L. Stone, and Jas. B. Wright, all of ... Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff ... Richards ... & ... In ... the cases of Mahopoulus v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co ... (C.C.) 167 F. 165, and Sagara v. Chicago, etc., Ry ... Co. (C.C.) 189 F ... ...
-
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Smith
...promise to furnish new hammers. Supra; 101 Ark. 197. 3. The petition for removal to the Federal court was properly overruled. 98 Ark. 507; 195 F. 832; 199 F. 667; 291. 4. The verdict is not excessive, when considered in the light of appellee's age, his life expectancy, his earning capacity,......
-
Baldwin v. Pacific Power & Light Co.
...I am wholly unable to concur in his reasoning or conclusion, and I think his position is answered by Judge Van Valkenburg in Stone v. C., B. & Q. Railway, supra. a corporation cannot be a nonresident for the purpose of removal within the meaning of section 28 of the Judicial Code, and at th......