Legal Opinion

Knutson v. Campbell River Mills, Ltd.

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided July 10, 1924No. 187PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Process against a foreign corporation doing business in the state may be made upon the. President, cashier, secretary, or agent (Rem. C. S. § 226), and suit may be commenced in any district in which valid service can be made (Tierney v. Helvetia Ins. Co. [C. C.] 163 Fed. 82) and in which business is transacted (1 Foster’s Fed. Prac. 156; Peterson v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 364, 27 Sup. Ct. 513, 51 L. Ed. 841).

Residence of an officer in his individual relation of itself does not give a corporation domiciliary status. Ostrander v. Deerfield Lbr. Co.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  3. Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
  4. Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mutual Fire Insurance v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  5. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Ry. v. DeBowSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State Highway & Public Works Commission v. Diamond Steamship Transportation Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  2. United States v. Pacific Forwarding Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1934
  3. Wallace v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1925
  4. Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1953
  5. Smith v. HallDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API