TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Donovan v. Dixieland Amusement Co.

Donovan v. Dixieland Amusement Co., 152 F. 661 (1907)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
March 29, 1907
Judges
Chateierd
Citations
152 F. 6611907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5061
Headnotes
1. CORPORATIONS — JURISDICTION OVER — SERVICE ON OEITCEE TEMPORARILY IN State. Jurisdiction over a corporation of another state which has no place of business, and is not doing business, in the state of suit, cannot be acquired by service of process on one of its officers temporarily in such state. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 12, Corporations, ,§ 2613. Service of process on foreign corporations, see note to Eldred v. American Palace-Car Co., 45 C. C. A. 3.] 2. Removal op Causes — Amount in' Controversy — Amendment op Complaint. Where the amount claimed by a plaintiff in his complaint in the state conrt is sufficient to give a federal court jurisdiction, and the cause is otherwise removable, the plaintiff cannot defeat such jurisdiction after removal by offering to reduce the amount of his claim. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 42, Removal of Causes, § 133.]
Summary
On Motion to Quash Service and Motion to Remand to State Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Chateierd

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

CHATEIERD, District Judge.

The plaintiff brought suit in the Supreme Court of the state of New York for $13,375, and served his process upon an officer of the defendant, which is a Florida corporation, while this officer was temporarily within the state. The defendant removed .the case into the United States court, and now moves to set aside the service of the summons and complaint on the ground that the-defendant corporation is not doing business within the state of New York, and is not a New York corporation. The plaintiff thereupon made a motion to remand the action to the state court, and has filed an affidavit in which he offers to reduce his claim to the amount of $1,999.

All the questions presented upon these motions are considered, and the numerous cases upon the subject referred to are cited in Johnson v. Computing Scale Co. (C. C.) 139 Fed. 339 , and it is unnecessary here to repeat the statements of the court in that case.

The motion to set aside the service will be granted, and the motion to remand and to allow the filing of a release for a portion of the claim will be denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1938: 119382026peak 1938 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.303 U.S. 283 (1938)

Most recent

  1. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.303 U.S. 283 (1938)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Johnson v. Computing Scale Co., 139 F. 339 (1905) 10

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