United States Gramophone Co. v. Columbia Phonograph Co.

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

United States Gramophone Co. v. Columbia Phonograph Co.

106 F. 220, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4625

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1901

DocketNos. 1, 2, 3

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 106 F. 220 (United States Gramophone Co. v. Columbia Phonograph 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

United States Gramophone Co. v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 106 F. 220, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4625 (circtedpa 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

Tlie bills in these cases allege that the American Graphophone Company, one of the defendants, though not an inhabitant of this district, has a regular and established place of business therein. It is unnecessary to decide upon this motion whether or not this allegation is well founded in fact, and I do not do so, but I deem it proper to say that the impression which has been made upon my mind by the affidavits how presented is that it is not.

The present motion is to set aside the service of the alias subpoena, and to strike off the return of service, as to the American Graphophone Company, and I am of the opinion that the objection made is well taken. The return is that the writ Was served “by leaving a true and attested copy thereof with Ernest Lowengrund, the designated agent of said company, and making the contents of same known to him.” Mr. Lowengrund, it appears, is the designated agent of the American Graphophone Company, under the Pennsylvania statute of April 22, 1874. But this does not show that the corporation has an established place of business in this district, but merely that it may do business in Pennsylvania without violation of the laws of that state; and the act of congress upon which the plaintiff is compelled to rely, as giving this court jurisdiction of the defendant in question, not only requires that such a defendant shall have a regular and established place of business within the district, but also that service of subpoena shall be made, not upon agents generally, but “upon the agent or agents engaged in conducting such business in the district, in which suit is brought.” It is clear, upon the proofs, that Mr. Lowengrund is not such an agent. The motion to set aside the service of the alias subpoena, as to the American Graphophone Company, is granted.

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

DALLAS, Circuit Judge.

Tlie bills in these cases allege that the American Graphophone Company, one of the defendants, though not an inhabitant of this district, has a regular and established place of business therein. It is unnecessary to decide upon this motion whether or not this allegation is well founded in fact, and I do not do so, but I deem it proper to say that the impression which has been made upon my mind by the affidavits how presented is that it is not.

The present motion is to set aside the service of the alias subpoena, and to strike off the return of service, as to the American Graphophone Company, and I am of the opinion that the objection made is well taken. The return is that the writ Was served “by leaving a true and attested copy thereof with Ernest Lowengrund, the designated agent of said company, and making the contents of same known to him.” Mr. Lowengrund, it appears, is the designated agent of the American Graphophone Company, under the Pennsylvania statute of April 22, 1874. But this does not show that the corporation has an established place of business in this district, but merely that it may do business in Pennsylvania without violation of the laws of that state; and the act of congress upon which the plaintiff is compelled to rely, as giving this court jurisdiction of the defendant in question, not only requires that such a defendant shall have a regular and established place of business within the district, but also that service of subpoena shall be made, not upon agents generally, but “upon the agent or agents engaged in conducting such business in the district, in which suit is brought.” It is clear, upon the proofs, that Mr. Lowengrund is not such an agent. The motion to set aside the service of the alias subpoena, as to the American Graphophone Company, is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 F. 220, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-gramophone-co-v-columbia-phonograph-co-circtedpa-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack