Van Dresser v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1891
• Citation: 48 F. 202
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Southern Division
• Parties: VAN DRESSER v. OREGON RY. & NAV. CO. et al.

48 F. 202

VAN DRESSER v. OREGON RY. & NAV. CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Southern Division.

November 12, 1891

Thomas H. Brentz and M. M. Godman, for plaintiff.

W. W Cotton, for defendants.

HANFORD J.

The oregon Railway & Navigation Company is a corporation created and existing under the laws of the state of Oregon, and is the owner of a line of railway in this state, which is being operated pursuant to a lease thereof by the Oregon Short Line & Utah & Northern Railway Company, a corporation created by an act of congress, having its principal office at Cheyenne in the state of Wyoming. The Union Pacific Railway Company is also a corporation created by an act of congress, having its principal office at Boston, in the state of Massachusetts and is connected with the other corporations by being a party to the lease above mentioned, and also by reason of the fact that it and the Short Line Company, and several other railway companies, are associated together, for their mutual convenience and profit, in the carrying business, under the name of the 'Union Pacific System.' These three corporations, which, for the sake of brevity, I will designate the 'Oregon Company,' the 'Short Line Company,' and the 'U.P. Company,' are charged in the complaint in this action with negligence in the running of a train of cars on the line of road in this state, of which the Oregon Company is the owner, and the Short Line Company is the lessee, causing a personal injury to the plaintiff, for which he sues to recover damages. Each of the defendants has appeared specially, and filed a separate plea in abatement, denying the jurisdiction of the court. By stipulation of the parties a jury was waived, and the case has been tried before the court, and submitted upon the pleas, replications thereto, and evidence.

The Short Line Company is the central figure in this litigation by reason of the fact that it was at the time of the injury complained of engaged in oeprating the railroad referred to, and, by its servants and agents, had the management and control of the train of cars upon which the accident happened. By its plea challenging the jurisdiction of the court this corporation assumes to be in this state a foreign corporation, by reason of the fact that it has a principal place of business, where its seal is kept, in another state. It contends that, by the provisions of the act defining the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States, it is not suable by original process in a circuit court of the United States in any district other than the one in which it has its legal residence. If it were true that this corporation is legally a citizen of the state of Wyoming, and not an inhabitant of this state, I think the case would be cognizable in this court, by reason of the diverse citizenship of the parties, the plaintiff being a citizen of this state. But the argument is based upon false premises. This corporation is a creature of congress, and is within the territorial limits of this state, transacting business under and by virtue of national authority. It is, in every state and territory of the Union in which it may lawfully exercise its powers, a domestic institution. 2 Mor.Priv.Corp. § 984. I hold that it is liable to be sued in the national courts in any district wherein it may be found doing business, and having an agent or representative upon whom service of process can be made. It is not denied that in this case process has been served, in the manner provided by the laws of this state, upon an authorized agent of the defendant, having at the time the management and superintendence of its business. I must conclude, therefore, that it is bound to answer the complaint in this action.

The U.P. Company bases its plea upon the same ground, and also upon a denial of the fact that the person upon whom the process was served was or is its agent; and it denies that it is transacting business, or that it has any agent authorized to receive service of process for it, in this state. The testimony shows, and I have found as a fact, however that this corporation is an active competitor for the through freight and passenger traffic between all points in this state and Omaha, Kansas City, Chicago, and all points east; and, to aid in securing as large a share as possible, it has formed a combination with the Short Line Company, operating lines of railway and steamers in this state, and other corporations operating connecting railways in other states, under the name of the 'union Pacific System.' It is the owner of a line of railway which is part of the system, and engaged in operating it. Every contract made in that name, for a passage or for transportation of freight over its railway, must be regarded as its contract, and is binding to the same extent as if made in its corporate name. The evidence shows that such contracts are being made in this state continually, for its benefit and profit, with its knowledge and consent, and the person upon whom the summons was served in this case was at the time a duly-authorized ticket and freight agent of each and all the associated companies composing the Union Pacific System. I hold, therefore, that the U.P. Company is a corporation doing business in this state, and that it should not be allowed to repudiate the...