Simpkins v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry.

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

Simpkins v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry.

19 F. 802, 21 Blatchf. 554, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2512

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 F. 802 (Simpkins v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Simpkins v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry., 19 F. 802, 21 Blatchf. 554, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2512 (circtedny 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Benedict, J.

This case comes before the court upon a motion on the part of the defendant to compel security for costs, upon the ground that the plaintiff is a non-resident. The action was commenced in the supreme court of the state. The complaint filed in the state court averred that the defendant is a foreign corporation. By a statute of the state, the supreme court of the state has jurisdiction of actions like the present when brought against foreign corporations, provided the plaintiff be a resident of the state, not otherwise. The answer filed in the state court averred, by way of objection to the jurisdiction, that the plaintiff Was not a resident of the state of New York, but of England. Thereafter, the defendant removed the case to this court, and now moves for security for costs upon affidavits tending to show the' plaintiff to be a non-resident of the state. Counter-affidavits-are read in support of the plaintiff’s averment that he is a resident. The issue thus raised is the same raised by the defendant’s answer. It is one of the issues of the cause presented by the pleadings while the cause was in the state court. This issue tendered by the defendant’s answer is, moreover, controlling; for if the defendant be a non-resident, as the answer asserts, the action would have failed in the state court for want of jurisdiction, and must therefore fail here, notwithstanding the plaintiff, if a non-resident, may also be an alien, and the action, for that reason, one which this court is competent to entertain. Eor it is the cause instituted in the state court which is to be determined by this court, and the plaintiff’s residence, if fatal to the action in ease it had remained in the state court, must [803]*803be fatal here. The defendant, therefore, by the present motion, seeks the determination of a jurisdictional fact, which determination, if in accordance with the .defendant’s contention, would involve a dismissal of the action. Such a determination cannot, in my opinion, be properly sought in this manner by a motion upon affidavits, but should be left to abide the result of the trial of the issue presented by the answer.

Motion denied.

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

Benedict, J.

This case comes before the court upon a motion on the part of the defendant to compel security for costs, upon the ground that the plaintiff is a non-resident. The action was commenced in the supreme court of the state. The complaint filed in the state court averred that the defendant is a foreign corporation. By a statute of the state, the supreme court of the state has jurisdiction of actions like the present when brought against foreign corporations, provided the plaintiff be a resident of the state, not otherwise. The answer filed in the state court averred, by way of objection to the jurisdiction, that the plaintiff Was not a resident of the state of New York, but of England. Thereafter, the defendant removed the case to this court, and now moves for security for costs upon affidavits tending to show the' plaintiff to be a non-resident of the state. Counter-affidavits-are read in support of the plaintiff’s averment that he is a resident. The issue thus raised is the same raised by the defendant’s answer. It is one of the issues of the cause presented by the pleadings while the cause was in the state court. This issue tendered by the defendant’s answer is, moreover, controlling; for if the defendant be a non-resident, as the answer asserts, the action would have failed in the state court for want of jurisdiction, and must therefore fail here, notwithstanding the plaintiff, if a non-resident, may also be an alien, and the action, for that reason, one which this court is competent to entertain. Eor it is the cause instituted in the state court which is to be determined by this court, and the plaintiff’s residence, if fatal to the action in ease it had remained in the state court, must [803]*803be fatal here. The defendant, therefore, by the present motion, seeks the determination of a jurisdictional fact, which determination, if in accordance with the .defendant’s contention, would involve a dismissal of the action. Such a determination cannot, in my opinion, be properly sought in this manner by a motion upon affidavits, but should be left to abide the result of the trial of the issue presented by the answer.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. 802, 21 Blatchf. 554, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpkins-v-lake-shore-m-s-ry-circtedny-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack