Rowbotham v. George P. Steele Iron Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Rowbotham v. George P. Steele Iron Co.

71 F. 758, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2497

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 27, 1896

DocketNo. 11

StatusPublished

This text of 71 F. 758 (Rowbotham v. George P. Steele Iron Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rowbotham v. George P. Steele Iron Co., 71 F. 758, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2497 (circtedpa 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The complainant and the principal defendant, the George P. Steele Iron Company, are both citizens of New Jersey. The latter has pursued the provisions of a Pennsylvania statute by filing its charter and appointing an agent in that state, upon whom service of process may be made; and it does business therein. But these facts do not defeat its right to insist that it shall not be sued in a court of the United States elsewhere than in the district of New Jersey, in which it was created. In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 16 Sup. Ct. 273; Filli v. Railroad Co., 37 Fed. 65.

Respecting the other defendants the case is not one of which this court, as a court of equity, can take cognizance. They were made parties only as officers of the George P. Steele Iron Company, and the only prayer as to them is for an accounting on behalf of that company. No equitable ground for relief against them is presented. Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189. The bill is dismissed, with costs.

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

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

The complainant and the principal defendant, the George P. Steele Iron Company, are both citizens of New Jersey. The latter has pursued the provisions of a Pennsylvania statute by filing its charter and appointing an agent in that state, upon whom service of process may be made; and it does business therein. But these facts do not defeat its right to insist that it shall not be sued in a court of the United States elsewhere than in the district of New Jersey, in which it was created. In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 16 Sup. Ct. 273; Filli v. Railroad Co., 37 Fed. 65.

Respecting the other defendants the case is not one of which this court, as a court of equity, can take cognizance. They were made parties only as officers of the George P. Steele Iron Company, and the only prayer as to them is for an accounting on behalf of that company. No equitable ground for relief against them is presented. Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189. The bill is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 F. 758, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 2497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowbotham-v-george-p-steele-iron-co-circtedpa-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack