Smith v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
At Raw. Actions by Thomas H. Smith, administrator, and by W. A. Morton, administrator, against the Babcock & Wilcox Company and Walker D. Hines, Director-General of Railroads, operating the Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad Company. On motions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
1Opinion of the Court
WEST!N HAVER, District Judge.
Defendants, appearing specially for the purpose, move to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The amended petitions show that the plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the state of Ohio; that the defendant the Babcock & Wilcox Company is a citizen and resident of some state other than Ohio; that Walker D. Hines, the Director-General of Railroads and operating as such the Akron & Barberton Railroad lines, is a citizen of some state other than Ohio. The citizenship of the railroad company, the owner of the lines, is not stated, but in argument it was said without…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. LangerSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Haubert v. Baltimore & O. R.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1919
- Cleveland & Western Coal Co. v. J. H. Hillman & Sons Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1917
- MacLeod v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
3Cited by13 opinions
- Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. v. HinesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1921
- Westbrook v. Director General of RailroadsDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1920
- Blevins v. HinesDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1920
- Payne v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Payne v. LyonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.