Takacs v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1915
• Citation: 228 F. 728
• Parties: TAKACS v. PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

228 F. 728

TAKACS v. PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

May 10, 1915

The plaintiff alleges that at the time of the commencement of this action he was and still is a resident of the state of New York, Southern district of New York, and that on June 30 1914, at Port Reading, in the state of New Jersey, he was injured through the fault of defendant. He now asks for judgment for the damages suffered by him. Defendant has moved to set aside the service of the summons and complaint herein.

It appears that the summons and complaint were served upon one George F. Baker, a director of the defendant company, within the state of New York. As the question here presented may arise again, the facts, as bearing upon defendant's business, are fully set forth for the information of counsel interested in cases of this character. These facts, as alleged in an affidavit submitted on behalf of defendant are as follows:

'Defendant operates movable equipment for the transportation of merchandise from other states into New York. Freight cars are delivered by defendant to connecting carriers at points outside of this state, and are hauled by such connecting carriers to the place of destination in this state and thereupon returned to defendant. Defendant does not haul any of said cars in this state, and receives compensation only for such portion of the transportation as is over defendant's lines.

'No part of this equipment is owned or ever was owned by defendant. Since January 5, 1897, such equipment has been in the possession of the Central Trust Company of New York trustee under a deed of trust from the owner thereof, with no reservation of possession to the owner, which trustee has, by lease, granted to defendant the right, personal to defendant only, to operate said equipment, upon payment of the rentals reserved in said lease, and upon the continued operation of said equipment by defendant as a railroad company.

'Coupon tickets for the transportation of passengers, good over the defendant's lines, are sold in New York; but such tickets are only sold by other carriers, the transportation initiating with such other carriers, and the defendant receives compensation only for the portion of the transportation over its own lines, none of which is in New York. None of such ticket-selling agents are employes, or under the control, of this defendant.

'The case is in no wise different from that of some railroad in California, transportation over whose lines may be effected in connection with a through ticket, purchased at the office of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, or any other large trunk road having an office in New York.

'The defendant has agents in this state, employed to request shippers of merchandise to send freight, part of the transportation of which would be over the defendant's lines. The contracts made by said agents are forwarded to defendant's main...