Legal Opinion
De Dood v. Pullman Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 4, 1932No. 298PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
It is conceded, as it must be, that without the defendant’s consent the action could not be brought in the Eastern district of New York, Seaboard Rice Milling Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 270 U. S. 363, 46 S. Ct. 247, 70 L. Ed. 633, nor process of the court below be served in the Southern district, Sowchulis v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 233 F. 423 (C. C. A. 2); Robertson v. Labor Board, 268 U. S. 619, 622, 45 S. Ct. 621, 69 L. Ed. 1119. The sole issue is whether correspondence passing between the parties prior to tho institution of the suit constituted a waiver by…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Robertson v. Railroad Labor BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Gilbert v. BurnstineNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Grover & Baker Sewing MacHine Co. v. RadcliffeSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Interior Construction & Improvement Co. v. GibneySupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Seaboard Rice Milling Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Battle v. General Cellulose Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
- Mulcahy v. WhitehillDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1943
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- In Re the Arbitration Between Republique Francaise & Cellosilk Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1955
- Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corp. v. EskindNew York Supreme Court · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.