WOTHERSPOON, V. MASSACHUSETTS BEN. ASS'N
WOTHERSPOON V. MASSACHUSETTS BEN.
(Oircuit Oourt, N. D. New York. May 10, 1889.)
]j'EDERAL COURTS-CIRCUIT COURTS-JURISDICTION.
Where every jurisdictional requirement of the act of 1875 is complied with, a suit in a district in one,state. for a cause not arising there, between a plaintiff residing in another state and a corporation of a third state, will not be dismissed because by the local statutes the state courts have no jurisdiction. A foreign insurance company is "found" in the state of the district of suit, where it has complied with the statute thereof, (Laws N. Y. 1884. c. 346,) providing companies may transact business In the state after having designated the superintendent of the insurance department as its lawful at,· torney on whom process may be served.
At Law. On motion to dismiss. .This action was commenced in August, 1885, to recover $10,000 upon two contracts of insurance issued by the defendant. The defendant appeared generally in the action, and on the 21st of October, 1885. its answer. The plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey, the defendant is a Massachusetts corporation. Chapter 346, Laws N. Y. 1884, provides, in substance, that foreign insurance companies may transact business in this state after having designated the superintendent of the insurance de· partment as their lawful attorney upon whom process may beseryed. ,The defendant complied with the requirements of this act prior to the commencement of this suit. The defendant now moves to' dismiss on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of the action for the reason that the jurisdiction of this court is concurrent with that of the Btate courts, and, as the action cannot be maintained in the latter, it cannot be maintained here. The proposition that the state courts have no jurisdiction is based upon a deqision of the court of appeals of New York in Robinson v. Navigation Co., 19 N. E. Rep. 625. In that case the court, construing section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holds that the courts of this state do not have jurisdiction of an action where the plain,tiff is a non-resident, the defendant a foreign corporation, and the caUB6 action did not arise within this state. Foster Thomson, for plaintiff. ·T. K. Hayward, for defendant. , COXE, J., (after stating the facts as above.) The plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states. The amount in controversy exceeds $500. j'lnere can be no doubt that the defendant was "found" here. Ex parte lSioJwllenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65; Gray i-' Mining 21 Fed,. Rep. 288; U. S. v. Telephone Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 17. ;}Wery requirement of H.le act of 1875, necessary to confer jurisdiction, is present. To disl;nissthe cauSe in such circumstances would he without .precedent. Whether or not tbe actIOn could have been brought in the . state courts is a matter of no moment. The United8tates courts do not look to state, legislation or1he decisions ohitaw tribunals for sources of v .38F.no.8-40
jurisdiction. If the contention of the defendant is correct, the state legislatures, l>Ylitniting th,e juril;ldictiop; Q,f can at the same time limit the jurisdiction ofthe federal courts. Such a proposition cannot be maintained.' This court had occasion to pa.ss upon a somewhat similar proposition in Edward8 'v. Insurance 00., 20 Fed. Rep. 452. There can be no doubt as The motion -is denied. '" ' ,
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Louuiana.May8, '1889.)
1. before the,Audgehavingjuxisdiction, over'the place Wllere ,liE! has Ilis domicile or except as otherw,i$e,,llp'eciallY prQVi,ded. Art,icle 165, No.6. de,, , elares th'at when the defeJidants al-e Joint obligcYrs'tbey maybe'sued at the domicile of anyone of them( He14that; as the lawsof,Louisiana creating , the ,me4'Il,p,01it,al1 P, Ol"iC, e., Ol1iZ,i,P,g"the, i,SSllan,ce,' ',Of" warrants. im,pos,e no on ,city of }rew jointly, with anr person or corporation. the dIstrIct parish has no Jur.sdlCtio? 1 the' city"thoughother defendants are JOIned, actIon oli !such warrants a$'41lll'8t over :Whom the hili "
, 2. S,\ME-.,.WAIVER. , : , ' "" , ' "", """ ' ,,",' , Coile Pr"c. art. 98,'provid'Els One fS8uedbefore a judge having DO 'jurisdiction overhifjiplace :(if domicile, but who is competent to decidothe t. ,cause i to the merit. instead ;of, declinjng the jl,ldg]lleDJ s,ball: be. valid·. In an action against city '. . of New Orl'ell.nsand,outslde 'an apphcatl'on was made fOl'arulefor ,!' '" !the a recei'Ver for th'll' outside parishes. to which rule, tl1e Git-y , .' ,was. nGlJt;:.. The a general appearance. I': and.pq ,p!eaQl,llgs havIng, flIed by cIty! a pro COnfeY80 taken' agalttStit."J, On' anapphcation by the clty'fdr airehearIngonthe ground that thlHlOl1Jlt ;had rrio jurisdiction' o.ver .it, held. that 'the jurisdiction had not (', ,1:Iee n , : ' ,",', '; ';:; ",,,' : , . ',' The cause of'action not being 'onewithin the Qriglnal jurisdiction of't)Ie '·.!.'federal cil:lc\l'111i cO,urt. bn'removal of the cause to it, only acquired state ,court had. " ;;" such jurisdiction over the
Of ,,' , ' . " '"
At Law. On final hearing. Charles Lougue, for complainant. Carleton Hunt. City Atty. t ( "i': " :Bef9rePAR.\?EEandBILT.. ,
This suit, was commenced in the ,district court of ·th,e "parish of J effersop, on the 21st <:l1tyof 1886; and is l,l. .suit brPught : plq,intiff"alleging' himself to be ,a ci of the, British empiret',f.o.r J hiIilself.a!nd other: ho.lders ofmetropfiilitan policewarra;nts;' Orleans and and Sl:t. ,,;aernard. to enforee 'on the· part ,of Said cprppratiops, for the()u't':aql.l;l.di:ng metropoliw,n poliCE! 0n the 21st dJlY:o( October,