Legal Opinion

Hayat Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Northern Assur. Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided January 7, 1933PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KNOX, District Judge.

The within motion must he denied. The defendant, being a British corporation, is a citizen and resident of that sovereignty, even; though it does business within the state of New York. See Baumgarten v. Alliance Assurance Co. (C. C.) 153 F. 301; Martin v. B. & O. R. R., 151 U. S. 673, 14 S. Ct. 533, 38 L. Ed. 311; National S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 1 S. Ct. 58, 27 L. Ed. 87.

As a nonresident foreign corporation, the defendant was subject to suit in this court at the hands of plaintiff. See Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 S. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964, and…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Martin's Administrator v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. Steamship Co. v. TugmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  3. Barrow Steamship Co. v. KaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  4. In Re HohorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  5. Niccum v. Northern Assur. Co.District Court, D. Indiana · 1927

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Nyberg v. Montgomery Ward & Co.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1954
  2. Bator v. Boosey & Hawkes, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API