Andrews Bros. v. Youngstown Coke Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio. Tills is an action by the Youngstown Coke Company, Limited, claiming to bo a corporation organized under the law of Pennsylvania, against the Andrews Brothers Company, a corporation of the state of Ohio, to recover $7.967.95, with interest from January 31, 1S89, for coke sold and delivered to the defendant by an unauthorized agent of the plaintiff, and used by the…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio. Tills is an action by the Youngstown Coke Company, Limited, claiming to bo a corporation organized under the law of Pennsylvania, against the Andrews Brothers Company, a corporation of the state of Ohio, to recover $7.967.95, with interest from January 31, 1S89, for coke sold and delivered to the defendant by an unauthorized agent of the plaintiff, and used by the defendant corporation. The suit is to recover the market value as for a conversion. A jury was waived, and the issues of…
1Opinion of the Court
LURTON, Circuit Judge,
after making tbe foregoing statement of facts, delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Tbe first and principal question is whether tbe circuit court had jurisdiction. Tbe plaintiff is described in its original petition as “a limited partnership association, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of tbe laws of tbe state of Pennsylvania, of which state it is a citizen.” This was perhaps an insufficient statement of its corporate character, under Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677, 9 Sup. Ct. 426, and Carnegie, Phipps & Co. v. Hulbert, 3 C. C. A. 391, 53 Fed. 10. To meet…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Boyd's Lessee v. GravesSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Providence Bank v. BillingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Chapman v. BarneySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Parkersburg v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- T. B. Harms & Francis, Day & Hunter v. SternCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915
- Douglass v. KavanaughCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
- Fred Macey Co. v. MaceyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1905
- Chelsea Sav. Bank v. City of IronwoodCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904
- Eaton v. Shiawassee CountyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.