New Haven Pulp & Board Co. v. Downingtown Mfg. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
At Law. On plea in abatement and to the jurisdiction. A plea in abatement and to the jurisdiction having been filed, the issue came on to be heard upon the following stipulated facts: (1) The plaintiff is a Connecticut corporation located in New Haven, and engaged in the business of manufacturing cardboard and card middles.
Read the full summary
At Law. On plea in abatement and to the jurisdiction. A plea in abatement and to the jurisdiction having been filed, the issue came on to be heard upon the following stipulated facts: (1) The plaintiff is a Connecticut corporation located in New Haven, and engaged in the business of manufacturing cardboard and card middles. (2) The defendant corporation was organized under the laws of Pennsylvania in January, 1903, for the purpose of taking over the plant and business formerly carried on by a so-called limited partnership by the name of .the Downingtown Manufacturing Company, Limited. The…
1Opinion of the CourtPlatt, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). It is contended that the service would have been good under section 571, Gen. St. Conn. Revision 1902, but the question here is one of general jurisprudence, and the federal court is not bound by the action of the state court in a similar situation. The jurisdiction of this court depends upon the acts of Congress relating thereto, and cannot be enlarged or abridged by a state statute. Goldey v. Morning News Co., 156 U. S. 518, 15 Sup. Ct. 559, 39 L. Ed. 517.
It is conceded that Mr. Tutton was the qualified agent of the defendant. One question alone remains,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Goldey v. Morning NewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Conley v. Mathieson Alkali WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- In Re the Louisville UnderwritersSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Doe v. Springfield Boiler & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
- Louden Machinery Co. v. American Malleable Iron Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. United States Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Atkinson v. United States Operating Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Beach v. Kerr Turbine Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1917
- Empire Fuel Co. v. LyonsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
- Dungan, Hood & Co. v. C. F. Bally, Ltd.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1921
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.