Orr v. Baltimore & O. R.

S.D. New York

Orr v. Baltimore & O. R.

242 F. 608, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1224

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedFebruary 16, 1914

DocketNo. 92

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 242 F. 608 (Orr v. Baltimore & O. R.) 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

Orr v. Baltimore & O. R., 242 F. 608, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1224 (S.D.N.Y. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

[1] This is a civil suit, in which the jurisdiction of the court, if there be any, depends, not upon the citizenship of the parties, but upon the fact that it arises under a law of the United States, viz., Interstate Commerce Act, Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, § 20, 24 Stat. 386 (Comp. St. 1916, § 8592). As such it could not have been'brought in this court, because the defendant, being a corporation of Maryland, is not an inhabitant of this district. Therefore it cannot be removed by the defendant against the objections of the plaintiff. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. (D. C.) 201 Fed. 932.

[2] Furthermore, the decisions make it very doubtful whether the suit, assuming that it does depend upon section 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act, does arise out of a law of the United States within the meaning of section 24, subd. 8, of the Judicial Code, aid in case of doubt it has always been the practice of this circuit to remand.

Motion, granted.

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

WARD, Circuit Judge.

[1] This is a civil suit, in which the jurisdiction of the court, if there be any, depends, not upon the citizenship of the parties, but upon the fact that it arises under a law of the United States, viz., Interstate Commerce Act, Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, § 20, 24 Stat. 386 (Comp. St. 1916, § 8592). As such it could not have been'brought in this court, because the defendant, being a corporation of Maryland, is not an inhabitant of this district. Therefore it cannot be removed by the defendant against the objections of the plaintiff. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. (D. C.) 201 Fed. 932.

[2] Furthermore, the decisions make it very doubtful whether the suit, assuming that it does depend upon section 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act, does arise out of a law of the United States within the meaning of section 24, subd. 8, of the Judicial Code, aid in case of doubt it has always been the practice of this circuit to remand.

Motion, granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 F. 608, 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orr-v-baltimore-o-r-nysd-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack