TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hirschl v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.

Hirschl v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 42 F. 803 (1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
June 26, 1890
Judges
Miller
Citations
42 F. 8031890 U.S. App. LEXIS 2242
Headnotes
.Removal of Causes — Citizenship oe Corporations. A petition for removal of a cause by a corporation of one state sued in the courts of another state is not sufficient unless it «lieges, in addition to the usual aver-ments as to citizenship, that it is a non-resident of the state in which it is sued.
Summary
At Law,. On motion to remand. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Wisconsin. It was sued in the district court of this state, in and for Cedar county; service of process being made, under section 2613 of the Code of Iowa, upon an agent. The cause was removed to this court upon a petition which averred the necessary citizenship of the parties, but which contained no averment that defendant was a non-resident of the state of Iowa. Plaintiff moves to remand because of tho absence of this averment.

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

Opinion of the Court — Miller

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

MilleR, Justice.

A corporation is a citizen of the state under whose laws it is organized. For the purpose of suing and being sued, it may become a resident of each state in which it does business under state law. The rule, under the removal act of August 13, 1888, as to natural persons, is applicable to corporations. Wrhen a corporation of one state is sued in the courts of another state, a petition for removal by it is not sufficient unless it alleges, in addition to the usual averments as to citizenship, that it is a non-resident of the state in which it is sued. The motion to remand is sustained.

How later courts describe this case

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

1898: 118982026peak 1898 · 1

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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