Norris v. Atlas Steam-Ship Co.

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

Norris v. Atlas Steam-Ship Co.

37 F. 279, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2691

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 F. 279 (Norris v. Atlas Steam-Ship 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

Norris v. Atlas Steam-Ship Co., 37 F. 279, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2691 (circtsdny 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Lacombe, J.

The main point raised upon this motion need not be now decided. Inasmuch as the controversy is one between a citizen of a state and a foreign citizen or subject, and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of $2,000, it is within the class of cases in which, by the express language of the first clause of section 1 of the act of 1887, the circuit courts are given jurisdiction. Wilson v. Telegraph Co., (Field and Sawyer, JJ.,) 34 Fed. Rep. 563, 564; Denton v. International, 36 Fed. Rep. 1. Whatever may be the true construction of the second clause of that section, (beginning “But no person shall be,” etc.,) it affects, not the question of federal cognizance, but solely the question of the place of bringing suit by original process in cases of federal cognizance. Fales v. Railroad Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673. The privilege which it accords to á defendant, viz., that he sfiall be sued only in the district of which he is an inhabitant, is one which may be waived. Halstead v. Manning, 34 Fed. Rep. 565. It was waived in this case by filing a general appearance, and answering to the merits. In this conclusion Judge Wheeler, with whom I have consulted, concurs.

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

Lacombe, J.

The main point raised upon this motion need not be now decided. Inasmuch as the controversy is one between a citizen of a state and a foreign citizen or subject, and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of $2,000, it is within the class of cases in which, by the express language of the first clause of section 1 of the act of 1887, the circuit courts are given jurisdiction. Wilson v. Telegraph Co., (Field and Sawyer, JJ.,) 34 Fed. Rep. 563, 564; Denton v. International, 36 Fed. Rep. 1. Whatever may be the true construction of the second clause of that section, (beginning “But no person shall be,” etc.,) it affects, not the question of federal cognizance, but solely the question of the place of bringing suit by original process in cases of federal cognizance. Fales v. Railroad Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673. The privilege which it accords to á defendant, viz., that he sfiall be sued only in the district of which he is an inhabitant, is one which may be waived. Halstead v. Manning, 34 Fed. Rep. 565. It was waived in this case by filing a general appearance, and answering to the merits. In this conclusion Judge Wheeler, with whom I have consulted, concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F. 279, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-atlas-steam-ship-co-circtsdny-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack