St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas v. Alexander
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW'YORK The facts, which involve the construction of the,Car-mack Amendment as to the place where the initial carrier may be sued, and also as to what constitutes carrying on business within a district so as to make the initial carrier amenable to process therein, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW'YORK The facts, which involve the construction of the,Car-mack Amendment as to the place where the initial carrier may be sued, and also as to what constitutes carrying on business within a district so as to make the initial carrier amenable to process therein, are stated in the opinion. The requirements of due process of law forbid that a corporation be held amenable to service of process in a foreign jurisdiction unless engaged in business therein of such character and in such a manner and to such an extent as…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Day
The defendant in error, Alexander, filed his complaint against the plaintiff in error, St. Louis Southwestern Rail way Company of Texas, a Texas corporation, in the Supreme Court of New York County to recover damages for loss sustained by him arising from the alleged negligence of the railway company in failing to properly ice and re-ice certain poultry shipped from Waco, Texas, to New York City under a bill of lading given by the railway company to the shipper, the Texas Packing Company. Upon the petition of the railway company the case was removed to the Circuit Court of;the United States…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- St. Clair v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- The Lafayette Ins. Co. v. FRENCHSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Goldey v. Morning NewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Riverside MillsSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by279 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Cannon Manufacturing Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
274 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.