Legal Opinion
By-Products Recovery Co. v. Mabee
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided January 11, 1923No. 218PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, District Judge
(sitting by designation). On the first defense set forth in the amended answer. This sets up, in effect, two defenses: (1) That there is no jurisdiction: and (2) res adjudicata, resulting from the proceedings in the state court.
1. The ground for challenging the jurisdiction seems to be that the defendant, who is averred by the bill to be a British subject, a citizen of the Dominion of Canada is in fact an .American citizen and an inhabitant of New York or of Illinois, and, on the jurisdictional ground of diversity of citizenship, only to be sued in the state of his residence. The objection…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Reynolds v. StocktonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Karrick v. HannamanSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Adams v. MessingerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Coppedge v. ClintonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
- Davis v. MabeeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1929
- Cheatham Electric Switching Device Co. v. Kentucky Switch & Signal Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926
- M. J. Lewis Products Co. v. LewisDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1931
- Rees v. LombardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1927
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.