TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Eddington v. Texas & New Orleans R. Co.

Eddington v. Tex. & New Orleans R. Co., 83 F. Supp. 230 (S.D. Tex. 1949)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. Texas · Federal District Courts
Decided
March 8, 1949
Docket
No. 4345
Judges
Kennerly
Citations
83 F. Supp. 2301949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2842

Opinion of the Court — Kennerly

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

KENNERLY, Chief Judge.

This is a suit by Plaintiffs, who alleged that they are citizens of the State of Louisiana, against the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company, which is alleged to be a citizen of Texas. The amount in controversy is alleged to exceed $3000, exclusive of interest and costs. There is no question about the jurisdiction, but there is a question about the venue, and Defendant has moved to dismiss for that reason.

The suit is to recover title and possession of a tract of land in Jefferson County, Texas, which is in the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas, and it is perfectly plain that the venue is there, and not here. See Aldrich Mining Co. v. Pearce, 169 Ala. 161 , 52 So. 911 , Ann.Cas. 1912B, 288; Appalachian Electric Power Co. v. Smith, D.C., 4 F.Supp. 3 ; Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co., 236 Mass. 185 , 128 N.E. 4 ; Brown v. Caldwell, 10 Serg. & R., Pa., 114, 13 Am. Dec. 660 ; Choice v. Texas Co., D.C., 2 F.Supp. 160 ; Elk Garden Co. v. F. W. Thayer Co., C.C., 179 F. 556 ; Ellenwood v. Marietta Chair Co., 158 U.S. 105 , 15 S. Ct. 771 , 39 L.Ed. 913 ; Elliott v. Powell, 10 Watts, Pa., 453, 36 Am.Dec. 200; Hunter v. United States Department of Agriculture, D.C., 69 F.Supp. 377 ; Matarazzo v. Hustis, D.C., 256 F. 882 ; Mather v. Trinity Church, 3 Serg. & R., Pa., 509, 8 Am.Dec. 663; Northern Indiana Ry. Co. v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 15 How. 233 , 56 U.S. 233 , 14 L.Ed. 674 ; Robinson v. Seatex Oil Co., D.C., 57 F.Supp. 581 ; Tyler v. Stan-olind Oil & Gas Co., 5 Cir., 77 F.2d 802 .

But the case should not be dismissed. Under a recent Statute, Section 1406, Title 28 U.S.C.A. effective September 1, 1948, the case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, and that will be done.

Let an Order be drawn and presented accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 11958: 21987: 11993: 119572026peak 1958 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 11

DepthCaseCited by
Ellenwood v. Marietta Chair Co., 158 U.S. 105 (1895) 90
Northern Ind. R.R. Co. v. Mich. Cent. RD. Co., 56 U.S. (15 How.) 233 (1854) 59
Aldrich Mining Co. v. Pearce, 52 So. 911 (Ala. 1910) 16
Matarazzo v. Hustis, 256 F. 882 (N.D.N.Y. 1919) 31
Ariz. Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co., 236 Mass. 185 (1920) 18
Choice v. Tex. Co., 2 F. Supp. 160 (N.D. Tex. 1933) 13
Tyler v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 77 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1935) 9
Elk Garden Co. v. T. W. Thayer Co., 179 F. 556 (1910) 8
Appalachian Elec. Power Co. v. Smith, 4 F. Supp. 3 (W.D. Va. 1931) 7
Hunter v. United States Dep't of Agric., 69 F. Supp. 377 (N.D. Tex. 1946) 5
Robinson v. Seatex Oil Co., 57 F. Supp. 581 (N.D. Tex. 1944) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list