Bretz v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.

19 F.2d 960, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1205
CourtDistrict Court, D. Delaware
DecidedMay 25, 1927
DocketNo. 1
StatusPublished

This text of 19 F.2d 960 (Bretz v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bretz v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 19 F.2d 960, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1205 (D. Del. 1927).

Opinion

MORRIS, District Judge.

To the declaration filed herein the defendant has demurred for want of jurisdiction, which is dependent upon diversity of citizenship, the jurisdictional amount being involved. The required diversity of citizenship exists between the parties, but neither is a resident of this district. It is to the want of such residence that the demurrer is really directed. The statute providing that such suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or defendant does not affect the general jurisdiction of the courts but pertains to venue only. It provides a personal exemption or privilege, which may be waived by an unqualified general appearance. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127,130, 11 S. Ct. 982, 35 L. Ed. 659; In re Moore, 209 U. S. 490, 28 S. Ct. 585, 52 L. Ed. 904, 14 Ann. Cas. 1164. Such appearance was entered by the defendant.

The demurrer must be overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. McBride
141 U.S. 127 (Supreme Court, 1891)
In Re Moore
209 U.S. 490 (Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 F.2d 960, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bretz-v-baltimore-o-r-co-ded-1927.