BOSTWICK II. AM. RICAN FINANcE' Co.
897
BOSTWICK 1'. AMERICAN FINANCE
Co.
(Circuit Court. S. D. New York. November 12,1890.) I'EDERAL COURTS-JUIUSDICTION-CITIZENSHIP-RESIDENCE.
Act Congo March 3,1887, as amended by Act Aug. 13. 1888, provides that no civil suit shall be brought against any person in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; "but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states. suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. t' Held. that, when the jurisdiction dep,ends solely on the citizenship, plaintiff may bring the action in the district whet"ein he resides. without reference to the residence of defendant. if he resides ina dilferent state. .
In Equity. John V. Bouvier, Jr., for the complainant. James Parker, for the defendant. COXE, J. The complaint alleges that the complainant is a citizen of this state and a resident of the city of New York; that the defendant is .a Pennsylvania corporation; and "that its principal and only place of business is at the city of New York, where it transacts all its business aforesaid, and not elsewhere." The action is in the nature of a cJ:editor's bill, in aid of a judgment heretofore recovered in an action in this coutt, which action was commenced by complainant in the Ilupreme court of New York in November, 1888,and was removed to this court by the defendant upon the ground that defendant was a foreign corporation. The defendant appears and interposes a special plea, insisting that the court has no jurisdictionfor the reason that the defendant is not a citizen or inhabitant of this state or found within this district. There is no proof as to the manner in which the defendant was brought into court, and no question arises as to the regularity of the service of the writ. If a question of kind exists it should have been raised by motion to set aside the service. Robinson v. Stock-Yard 00., 12 Fed. Rep. 361; Golden v. The Morning News, 42 Fed. Rep. 112. Nothing is now before the court but the bill and plea. The issue thus raised is plain and simple. Has this court jurisdiction of an action in which the complainant is a citizen of New York and a resident of this district, and the defendant a citizen of Pennsylvania? It is thought that it has. The act of March 3, 1887, amended August 13, 1888,) provides that the circuit court shall have jurisdiction orsuits at law or in equity where there is a controversy between citizens of different states; that no civil suit shall be brought against any person by any original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; "but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suits shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant." The parties here are citizens of different states, and the complainant is a resident of the district where the suit is brought. v.4SF.no.la-57
898
,FEDEJUL
vol.
48.
Nothing more is needed. In the case of Jifilli v. Railroad 00.,37 Fed. Rep. 65, it was said "If the plaintiff in the case at bar were a citizen of this state, and a resident effect service here, where of this districtt.b.e, collld no its principal omcets located, although it is a citizen of Pennsylvania, and so much of its railroad as is located in this state lies within the northern district." , This exactly covers the present case. See,also, Fales v. v. Railway Co., 3i3)j'ed. Rep. 114; St. LouiJrR.a,.v. Terre ,Haute R.Co., ld. 385; Rawleyv.Railway'Co., ld. Qo.,Id.,353; Bank v. Avciy,34 Fed. Rep.S1; Wilsonv. Telegraph Co., ld. 561; Hillsv. Railway 00.,37 Fed. Rep. 660. The plea is overruled. 'rhe defendant may answer within 20 days. · f '
UNITED STATES
MOtrN'l'AIN COKE' &: 'COAL' CO.
d al.
(Circuit Court,Af.D. Tennessee. October 18, 1890.) Where'the material allegations of a bill1l.1ed by the l1nlted States agaInst various , coal companles,undell Dong. July 2, 1890, to enjoin theircomblnation inrestl'aint oftrlide,al'e denied affidavits, a preliminary will, not be gr.anted ' as plaintiff givei ntiindemnif,ying bOndlD case the injunction should tie,aisso1 " ved. ,, '
In Equity., .' '.. . , This oase, arose on ,8 bill by the United States, under the act of congress approved "An act to protect trade and, COmmerce agaipllt,\;mlawfutrestraillts and All the coal companies doing husint:lss in the city of Nashville, as, members of the coal. hearing a exchange, were I))ade parties defendant. On the temporary injunction was,refulled. , , ' W. H. ,B., Miller, Wm. H. Tajt,Acting Atty. Gen., and John R-uhm, U:.'S. Atty. G. N. Tillman, and W. L.(banbery, for , ,
,
This is· an' application for apre1imipary injunction only, and it appearll to the coqrt, betterto await the hearing, and determine upon plen6,rypr.oof.ofthe exact facts those grave questions which have beel,l suggested, than to decide, the')llnow: \.lpon the bare statements of bill w4ich are so.general in their Qbaracter, and quite too barren of any aVElrments;Qfsp!3oitic facts ,to, Elnable the court the, true, particularlyjn view of the important of them; and ip this view-it: isunnecesaaryto,hear any counter-afIidJwite, :. The court iethe, more to thill course since the bill is. not that .of a private States citizen, complaining of an injury to him, but ,.HAMMOND,J.
Advertisement
