Griffin White Shoe Co. v. O'Connor & Goldberg

E.D. New York

Griffin White Shoe Co. v. O'Connor & Goldberg

277 F. 1012, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 936

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1921

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 F. 1012 (Griffin White Shoe Co. v. O'Connor & Goldberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griffin White Shoe Co. v. O'Connor & Goldberg, 277 F. 1012, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 936 (E.D.N.Y. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

GARVIN, District Judge.

[1, 2] By special appearance defendant questions the service of summons herein. The action was brought in the New York Supreme Court, Kings county. The defendant is a foreign corporation, and was served in the Southern district of New York. After the action was begun, it was duly removed to this court by petition, and upon a bond having been filed, approved by a justice of the New York Supreme Court. I have been referred to two decisions, both made within this circuit by District Judges. Wange v. Public Service Ry Co. (C. C.) 159 Fed. 189, and Centaur Motor Co. v. Eccleston (D. C.) 264 Fed. 852. Although the earlier decision was made in this district, the fact that it was not followed in the same circuit by a later case justifies me, I think, in holding that, where an early decision in this district by a District Judge has not been followed, it is not binding upon me, as would be a decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals. I have reached this conclusion after some hesitation having in mind the importance of harmony and consistency in judicial decisions, certainly within the same district, and only because the reasoning of the later case is to me more persuasive.

Motion to set aside service denied.

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

GARVIN, District Judge.

[1, 2] By special appearance defendant questions the service of summons herein. The action was brought in the New York Supreme Court, Kings county. The defendant is a foreign corporation, and was served in the Southern district of New York. After the action was begun, it was duly removed to this court by petition, and upon a bond having been filed, approved by a justice of the New York Supreme Court. I have been referred to two decisions, both made within this circuit by District Judges. Wange v. Public Service Ry Co. (C. C.) 159 Fed. 189, and Centaur Motor Co. v. Eccleston (D. C.) 264 Fed. 852. Although the earlier decision was made in this district, the fact that it was not followed in the same circuit by a later case justifies me, I think, in holding that, where an early decision in this district by a District Judge has not been followed, it is not binding upon me, as would be a decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals. I have reached this conclusion after some hesitation having in mind the importance of harmony and consistency in judicial decisions, certainly within the same district, and only because the reasoning of the later case is to me more persuasive.

Motion to set aside service denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 F. 1012, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-white-shoe-co-v-oconnor-goldberg-nyed-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack