Thomas v. Furness (Pacific) Limited, 11765.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 11765.,11765. |
| Citation | 171 F.2d 434 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. FURNESS (PACIFIC) LIMITED, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Gladstein, Andersen, Resner & Sawyer and Herbert Resner, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
McCutchen, Thomas, Matthews, Griffiths & Greene, Farnham P. Griffiths, Charles E. Finney and Brent M. Abel, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS and BONE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, George Thomas, brought an action against Furness (Pacific) Limited, a Canadian corporation, hereafter called Furness, in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco. On petition of Furness, the action was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. There Shaw, Savill & Albion, Ltd., a British corporation, hereafter called Shaw, was joined as a defendant. A summons was issued against Shaw and was served on James West. Furness appeared generally and moved for a summary judgment in its favor.1 Shaw appeared specially and moved to quash the service of the summons issued against it and to dismiss the action as to it for lack of jurisdiction of its person. The motions were heard, and judgment was thereupon entered as follows:
From that judgment plaintiff has appealed.
There was in this case a complaint and an amended complaint. No other pleading was filed. The amended complaint stated, in substance, that at all times mentioned therein defendants (Furness and Shaw) owned and operated the British vessel Fordsdale; that on or about May 21, 1946, the vessel was docked at the port of Oakland, California; that plaintiff was then and there an invitee of defendants on the vessel; that defendants then and there negligently failed to safely and properly maintain the vessel and its main deck, winches, appurtenances, gear and appliances and negligently failed to maintain proper and sufficient lights on the vessel; that the vessel was therefore unseaworthy; and that, as a result of said negligence and unseaworthiness, plaintiff then and there sustained injuries for which he prayed judgment for damages in the sum of $25,800.
The motion of Furness for a summary judgment was supported by an affidavit of West. The motion and affidavit were duly served on plaintiff. No opposing affidavit was served. No deposition or admission was filed. West testified at the hearing. His affidavit and testimony, neither of which was controverted, showed that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunbeam Corp. v. Payless Drug Stores
...issued against such defendant, the motion to quash service and to dismiss the defendant from the action should be granted. Thomas v. Furness, 9 Cir., 171 F.2d 434, certiorari denied 337 U.S. 960, 69 S.Ct. 1522, 93 L.Ed. 1759. Since the statements in the affidavits, to the effect that neithe......
-
Ghazoul v. International Management Services, Inc.
...early stage would lead to premature and unnecessary adjudications having no res judicata effect on the merits. Thomas v. Furness (Pacific) Ltd., 9th Cir. 1948, 171 F.2d 434, cert. denied, 337 U.S. 960, 69 S.Ct. 1522, 93 L.Ed. 1759 (1949). Footnote See also, Product Promotions, Inc. v. Coust......
-
Albert v. McGrath
...Similarly where undisputed facts showed adverse possession, Fife v. Barnard, 10 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 655. 11 Thomas v. Furness (Pacific), Limited, 9 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 434, where non-liability appeared because the plaintiff was an emergency employee. 12 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix §§ 1881 et seq.......
-
Jetco Electronic Industries, Inc. v. Gardiner
...early stage would lead to premature and unnecessary adjudications having no res judicata effect on the merits. Thomas v. Furness (Pacific) Ltd., 9th Cir. 1948, 171 F.2d 434, cert. denied, 337 U.S. 960, 69 S.Ct. 1522, 93 L.Ed. 1759 The Texas long arm statute provides that one who "does busin......