Hayat Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Northern Assur. Co.

S.D. New York

Hayat Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Northern Assur. Co.

2 F. Supp. 469, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1890

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJanuary 7, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 F. Supp. 469 (Hayat Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Northern Assur. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayat Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Northern Assur. Co., 2 F. Supp. 469, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1890 (S.D.N.Y. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

KNOX, District Judge.

The within motion must he denied. The defendant, being a British corporation, is a citizen and resident of that sovereignty, even; though it does business within the state of New York. See Baumgarten v. Alliance Assurance Co. (C. C.) 153 F. 301; Martin v. B. & O. R. R., 151 U. S. 673, 14 S. Ct. 533, 38 L. Ed. 311; National S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 1 S. Ct. 58, 27 L. Ed. 87.

As a nonresident foreign corporation, the defendant was subject to suit in this court at the hands of plaintiff. See Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 S. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964, and In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 14 S. Ct. 221, 37 L. Ed. 1211. It is, consequently, entitled to remove the present action to this court, and the authority therefor is the second sentence of section 71 of title 28 US CA. See Baumgarten v. Alliance Assurance Co., supra; Attleboro Mfg. Co. v. Frankfort Marine, etc., Ins. Co. (D. C.) 202 F. 293; Wind River Lumber Co. v. Frankfort Marine, etc. (C. C. A.) 196 F. 340. Also Niccum v. Northern Assur. Co. (D. C.) 17 F.(2d) 160; Schotis et al. v. North Coast Stevedoring Co. (D. C.) 24 F.(2d) 591, 592, and Best v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (D. C.) 243 F. 789.

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

KNOX, District Judge.

The within motion must he denied. The defendant, being a British corporation, is a citizen and resident of that sovereignty, even; though it does business within the state of New York. See Baumgarten v. Alliance Assurance Co. (C. C.) 153 F. 301; Martin v. B. & O. R. R., 151 U. S. 673, 14 S. Ct. 533, 38 L. Ed. 311; National S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 1 S. Ct. 58, 27 L. Ed. 87.

As a nonresident foreign corporation, the defendant was subject to suit in this court at the hands of plaintiff. See Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 S. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964, and In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 14 S. Ct. 221, 37 L. Ed. 1211. It is, consequently, entitled to remove the present action to this court, and the authority therefor is the second sentence of section 71 of title 28 US CA. See Baumgarten v. Alliance Assurance Co., supra; Attleboro Mfg. Co. v. Frankfort Marine, etc., Ins. Co. (D. C.) 202 F. 293; Wind River Lumber Co. v. Frankfort Marine, etc. (C. C. A.) 196 F. 340. Also Niccum v. Northern Assur. Co. (D. C.) 17 F.(2d) 160; Schotis et al. v. North Coast Stevedoring Co. (D. C.) 24 F.(2d) 591, 592, and Best v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (D. C.) 243 F. 789.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. Supp. 469, 1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayat-carpet-cleaning-co-v-northern-assur-co-nysd-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack