Legal Opinion
Wallingford & Arango v. McCarty
District Court, Canal Zone
Decided October 17, 1940No. Civ. No. 916PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GARDNER, District Judge.
Plaintiff instituted this action seeking recovery against the defendant on two promissory notes.
In the complaint it is alleged that the plaintiff is a corporation of the Republic of Panama and that the defendant is employed by The Panama Canal at Cristobal in the Canal Zone.
The defendant undertakes to challenge the jurisdiction of this court and the sufficiency of the complaint by a pleading *1003captioned “Special appearance on motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
The court recognizes that this motion is not the proper procedure to challenge the jurisdiction of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Panama Electric Ry. Co. v. MoyersCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1918
- De Jan v. De JanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1927
- Ward v. Studebaker Sales Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mahony v. Witt Ice and Gas CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1955
- United States v. Inter-Island Steam Nav. Co.District Court, D. Hawaii · 1950