Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 F. 323

Guinn v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co.

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa · decided 1882

<p>CORPORATION — Jurisdiction.</p> <p>Tlie “ principal place of business” oí a corporation is no test of residence, whether of a corporation or of a natural person, as a person may reside in one state and have his principal or sole place of business in another state.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on McCabe v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1947

2 district ·

201882189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1CORPORATION — Jurisdiction.

¶2Tlie principal place of business” oí a corporation is no test of residence, whether of a corporation or of a natural person, as a person may reside in one state and have his principal or sole place of business in another state.

¶3*324Trimble, Garuthers é Trimble, for plaintiff.

¶4H. E. J. Bourdman, for defendant.

¶5Love, D. J.

¶6The principle laid down in the case of McCabe v. Ill. Cent. R. Co. 13 Fed. Rep. 827, is decisive of the present case. The defendant is an Iowa corporation, having its principal place of business at Marshalltown, in the central division of the district of Iowa. Process was served upon its agent, C. M. Miller, at the town of Albia, in the southern division, returnable at Keokuk. The late act of congress, creating circuit court jurisdiction in the several divisions of the district of Iowa, provides, in substance, that suit shall be brought in the division in which the defendant has his residence. The defendant herein now moves to have the cause transferred to the central division on the ground that the residence of the defendant is at the principal place of business, which is in the central division. In addition to .what is shown in the Case of McCabe, siqwa, it may be said that the “principal place of business” is no test of residence, whether of a corporation -or natural person. A natural person might reside in one state and have his principal, or, for that matter, his sole place of business in another state. I presume that thousands of persons reside in Jersey City and have their principal place of business in New York, and many no doubt reside beyond the limits of the state of New York and carry on their sole business in the city of New York.

¶7The motion is denied.

/14/f1d/323 · .json · Public domain