Ferguson v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.

169 F. 888, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5486

This text of 169 F. 888 (Ferguson v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ferguson v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 169 F. 888, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5486 (circtsdny 1909).

Opinion

NOYES, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff’s assignor is an alien. The defendant is a citizen. The Circuit Court of the United States had jurisdiction of a controversy between them. The venue of the action would have been primarily the district of which the defendant was an inhabitant, the district of New Jersey; butj the jurisdiction existing in the Circuit Court, the venue provision might have been waived if the defendant had been sued by the alien here. Consequently I think it may be said that the suit might have been prosecuted in this court if no assignment had been made. Therefore, while the question is doubtful, I shall rule that the provision regarding taking cognizance of suits by assignees is inapplicable, and that the controversy after the assignment became one between citizens of different states, and that the action was properly brought in the district where the assignee resides. See Whitman v. Taubel, 168 Fed. 1023, and Vaile [889]*889v. Moffat, 168 Fed. 1023 (decided by this court January 27, 1909); also, Stimson v. U. S. Wrapping Company (C. C.) 156 Fed. 298; Bolles v. Lehigh Valley R. (C. C.) 127 Fed. 884.

The motion is denied.

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

Related

Bolles v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.
127 F. 884 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1904)
Stimson v. United Wrapping Mach. Co.
156 F. 298 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York, 1907)
Whitman v. Taubel
168 F. 1023 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 F. 888, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-consolidated-rubber-tire-co-circtsdny-1909.