Iowa Lillooet Gold Min. Co. v. Bliss
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa
On Motion to Remand. This action was commenced in the district court of Iowa, in and for Hardin county. From the petition of plaintiff which is in one count it appears: That plaintiff, the Iowa Lillooet Gold Mining Company, Limited, is a corporation organized under the laws of Canada, doing business in Iowa with its headquarters in the city of Iowa Falls, in Hardin county; that the defendant Bliss is a citizen of Iowa residing at Iowa Falls, and was or had been the secretary…
Read the full summary
On Motion to Remand. This action was commenced in the district court of Iowa, in and for Hardin county. From the petition of plaintiff which is in one count it appears: That plaintiff, the Iowa Lillooet Gold Mining Company, Limited, is a corporation organized under the laws of Canada, doing business in Iowa with its headquarters in the city of Iowa Falls, in Hardin county; that the defendant Bliss is a citizen of Iowa residing at Iowa Falls, and was or had been the secretary of the plaintiff, and that part of his duties was to draw orders upon its treasurer for the payment of money when…
1Opinion of the CourtReed, District Judge
(after stating the facts). The motion to remand challenges the jurisdiction of this court, and in support thereof is it urged: That plaintiff being a corporation of Canada, and defendant a corporation of Maryland, neither being a citizen or resident of Iowa, the action could not have been brought by original process in this court, and is not therefore one that is removable from the state court. This contention fails to distinguish between the jurisdiction or right of a court to determine a controversy, and the venue or place where that jurisdiction may be exercised. The first part of section…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Ex Parte SchollenbergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Barney v. LathamSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Toland v. SpragueSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Matarazzo v. HustisDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1919
- United States v. New York & O. S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
- Barlow v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa · 1908
- Manufacturers' Commercial Co. v. Brown Alaska Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1906
- Way v. Waterloo, Cedar Falls & Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1947
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.