HOHORST tI. HAMBURG-AMER. PACKET CO.
HOHORST '/1. HAMBURG-AMER. PACKET
Co. et ale
(Oircuit Oourt, B. D. New York. April 1. 1889.) 1.
FEDERAL COURTs-CmcmT COURTS-JURISDICTION-IN WHAT DISTRICT Ao· TION SHOULD BE BROUGHT.
A steam·ship company. incorporated under the laws of. and having its principal office in. a European country, between which and the port of New York city its vessels ply. and whose piers for the lading and unlading of its cargoes are in New Jersey. where its office for the transaction of its industrial opera· tions in America is kept. but whose financial and monetary operations are conducted at the office of its agents in New York ci!y, which office it advertises as its New York ollice, is not suable in New 1:ork under act Congo March 8, 1887. § 1, requiring actions to be brought in the district of which the defendant is an "inhabitant. " ..
If, after a defendant files ageneral noticeof appearance. the bill is amended so that a demurrer thereto for want of jurisdiction will no longer lie. he will be permitted to amend his general notice to make it special only, unless the com.plainant will stipulate to withdraw his amended bill. and proceed on the original.
Bill to Restrain Infringement of Patent. Motion to amend notice of appearance by limiting the same to a special appearance to set aside service of process and to dismiss. W. D. Edmmda, for the motion, cited: Oann01' V. Railroaa Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 273; Vanner8Q1!. v. Le'Derett, 31 Fed· . Rep. 376; Jes8up V. Railroad Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 735; Hal8tead V. Manning. 34 Fed. Rep. 565; Manufacturing CO. V. Manujar:turing Co., Id. 818; ReinBtadler V. ReetJes, 33 Fed. Rep 308; Preston v. Fire Extinguisher Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 721: Manufacturing 00. V. Manujactnring 00·· 34 Fed. Hep.818: Holmes v. Railroad Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 229: Denton v. International-cOo., 36 Fed. Rep. 1; U. S. V. YateB. 6 How. 605; Hunt v. Brennan. 1 Hun. 213; BookfYI' v. Lamont, 13 How. Pt. 23; Sullivan v. Frazee, 4 Rob. (N. Y.) 616. Salter T. Olark, for complainant, cited: Oreighton v. Kerr, 20 Wall. 8: Norris v. Steam-Ship 00.,37 Fed. Rep. 279.
LACOMBE, J. That the court has power to allow a general notice of appearance to be amended so as to make it special only seems to be well settled. U. S. v. Yates, 6 How. 605. The defendant prays for this relief solely,. as it insists, because since filing the notice of appearance the bill has been amended so that it can no longer be demurred to for want of jurisdiction. The motion will Qe granted unless within five days after entry and service of this order the complainant shall stipulate to withdraw his amended bill, and go to trial on the original bill. The defundantthe Hamburg-American Packet Company further moves to set aside the service of process upon it because this court has no jurisdiction of the person of such defendant. The suit is brought by a citizen and resident of the state of New York to restrain infringement of a patent, and for damages. As such it is covered by the cIalise of section 1 of the act of March 3, 1887, which provides that no ch·il suit v.38F.no.4-18
shall be brought against any person by any original process or proceedings in ar.y,otlier district than that whereof he. is an inhabitant. The Hamburg-American Packet Company is incorporated under the laws of a European government. Its principal offices and· place of business are, and always have been. situated in the city of Hamburg, Germany; all i1;&diJleptors. and stockholders being residents of the German empire. The business of the said company is that of an ocean carrier between forthe port ofNew'X'ork. Its financial agents in this country are Kunhardt & Co.; and it advertises their office as its office in New York...' By Kunhardt & Co. t as 'its agents. here,its usual monetary and financialtransactionsa,re conducted, but the piers, to which its vessels come are in New Jersey. There it receives and diSCharges cargo, and maintains an 'office :for the transaction of the matters immediately connected with its actual industrial operations iIi this ;country. Upon this state of .facts the defendant the Hamburg-American Packet Company cannot be <)onsidered an inhabitant of the Southern district of New York. If thegeJ:?,eralappearancebe as an order may be entered setting aside the service of process upon that company.
'LocKHAnT 'D. MEMPHIS
& L.' R. R,.'Qo. /lE' al. .,
to judgment .bydefault ·fOri any faiJure of ,his adver8,!,r,y PIll. qisr.,p,leading withintlj.e .time prescl'ibed by the Tennessee Code fail to enter judgment for the default, the opposite party may file the pleading at any time. indefinitely, as a matter of right;. withol\tapplication to.the court to .lInlarge, the time; wherefore a petition tpr removal to the .federal cOUrt is filed' in time, under the act of March '<I, 1887,11 flIed before or at the time the defendant files his plea to the declaration or complaint, although the oxIg!n'!'lt!me by CodeJ;as expired. as thll rjgllt of removal is co-extenslve'Wlth'the rIght to plead, In such a case. . .. . , B. S.um2 SitEiitIFF's [f·:tbe.:plainti1fhaveleave to amend a'sheriff's retuxn showing parties t1> have been ,served, not hefore so appearing on,the.l,'ec.ord. this necessarily exteI\dsthEi defendant's time. for pleading indefibitel!, under the Tennessee 'i .. ' 'practice. and the time f1>1' removal is likewise extellaed, since he cannot be cqUipe!Jeqto plead in such a case; within the stattitorylimit, under the penalty of a fQrfeitjlre of his option.of remova.lif he d,onot waive the irregl\lar. . ity, and r'emoveor plead.
SAME-PLEAS IN ABATEMENT.
If the defendant file pleas In abatement to the writ within thetiine limited by the ,Code for filing pleas, or within any subseql\ent time belongingto hil]l as a right becaQse the fJl.ilure of the plaintiff to take a defal\lt for want of a plea, or because of an' or\:ler of the C(lui't allowing time to plead, this extends indefinitely the time for pleading to the declaration or complaint, and untUthe pleas in abatement are dispOSed of. and the right of pleading to the declaration or complaint has expired. the right of If, then, neither an order of the court nor any general rule of practice fix sometime