Kamenicky v. Catterall Printing Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Kamenicky v. Catterall Printing Co.

188 F. 400, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5189

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJune 13, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 188 F. 400 (Kamenicky v. Catterall Printing 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

Kamenicky v. Catterall Printing Co., 188 F. 400, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5189 (circtsdny 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

TACO MEE, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff is an alien, resident in this state; defendant, a corporation organized and resident in the state of New Jersey. The actions were brought in the state court (New York), and summons served here. Defendant has removed the causes, and motion is made to remand them.

Since plaintiff is an alien, the action, if brought in a federal court, could have been maintained only in the district of the residence of defendant. It is contended, therefore, that the removal is not into the “proper district,” agreeably to the requirement of the statute. It is not necessary to discuss the question. The effect of the various decisions referred to by counsel is to leave the question a doubtful one. When there is any doubt about jurisdiction of the federal court, it is the practice in this circuit to remand the cause. Plant v. Harrison (C. C.) 101 Fed. 307.

Motions granted.

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

TACO MEE, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff is an alien, resident in this state; defendant, a corporation organized and resident in the state of New Jersey. The actions were brought in the state court (New York), and summons served here. Defendant has removed the causes, and motion is made to remand them.

Since plaintiff is an alien, the action, if brought in a federal court, could have been maintained only in the district of the residence of defendant. It is contended, therefore, that the removal is not into the “proper district,” agreeably to the requirement of the statute. It is not necessary to discuss the question. The effect of the various decisions referred to by counsel is to leave the question a doubtful one. When there is any doubt about jurisdiction of the federal court, it is the practice in this circuit to remand the cause. Plant v. Harrison (C. C.) 101 Fed. 307.

Motions granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 F. 400, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 5189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamenicky-v-catterall-printing-co-circtsdny-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack