Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton
Citations
- 146 U.S. 202
- 13 S. Ct. 44
- 36 L. Ed. 942
- 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2189
Syllabus
<p>Under the act of March 3,1887, c. 373, § 1, as corrected by the act of August 13,1888, c. 866, a'corporation incorporated in one State only, and doing business in another State, is not thereby liable to be sued in a Circuit Court of the United States, held in the latter State.</p> <p>The want of the requisite citizenship of parties to give jurisdiction to a ' Circuit Court of the United States, when apparent on the face of the petition, may be taken advantage of by demurrer.</p> <p>An objection to the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court of the United' States, for want of the requisite citizenship of the parties, is not waived by filing a demurrer for the special and single purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction, or by answering to the merits upon that demurrer being overruled.</p> <p>The right of a corporation, sued in a Circuit Court of'the United States, to contest its jurisdiction for want of the requisite citizenship of the parties, is not affected by a statute of the State in which the court is held, requiring a foreign corporation, before doing business in the State, to file with the secretary of state a copy of its charter, with a resolution authorizing service of process to be made on any officer or agent engaged in its business within the State, and' agreeing to be subject to, all the provisions .of the statute, one of which is that the corporation shall not remove any suit from a court of the State into the Circuit Court of the United States; nor by doing business and appointing an agent within the State under that statute.</p> <p>A statute of a State, which makes an appearance in behalf- of a defendant, although in terms limited to the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, a waiver of immunity from jurisdiction’by reason of non-residence, is not applicable to actions in a Circuit Court of the United States, held within the State, under Rev. Stat., § 914..</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a statute, which “require[ed] the corporation, as a condition precedent to obtaining a permit to do business within the state, to surrender a right and privilege secured to it by the constitution and laws of the United States, was unconstitutional and void”
- “But that statute requiring the corporation, as a condition precedent to obtaining a permit to do business within the State, to surrender a right and privilege secured to it by the constitution and laws of the United States, was unconstitutional and void[.]”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
191 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court· 1939-11-22· cited 770×
- Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court· 1916-03-03· cited 468×
- Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of Cal.Supreme Court· 1926-06-07· cited 441×
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist.Supreme Court· 2013-06-25· cited 373×
- Goldey v. Morning NewsSupreme Court· 1895-03-04· cited 318×
- Martin's Administrator v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court· 1894-02-05· cited 268×
- Blake v. McClungSupreme Court· 1898-12-12· cited 262×
- Barrow Steamship Co. v. KaneSupreme Court· 1898-04-11· cited 226×
- In Re MooreSupreme Court· 1908-04-20· cited 213×
- St. Clair v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1894-05-26· cited 193×
- Terral v. Burke Construction Co.Supreme Court· 1922-02-27· cited 158×
- Merchants Heat & Light Co. v. J. B. Clow & SonsSupreme Court· 1907-01-28· cited 152×
- Bauserman v. BluntSupreme Court· 1893-03-06· cited 147×
- Marvine Markham v. City of Newport News, a Municipal CorporationFourth Circuit· 1961-06-19· cited 147×
- In Re Keasbey & Mattison Co.Supreme Court· 1895-12-16· cited 144×
- Baltic Mining Co. v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1913-11-03· cited 130×
- Morris & Co. v. Skandinavia InsuranceSupreme Court· 1929-05-13· cited 109×
- Central Trust Co. v. McGeorgeSupreme Court· 1894-01-03· cited 101×
- Interior Construction & Improvement Co. v. GibneySupreme Court· 1895-12-16· cited 97×
- MacOn Grocery Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court· 1910-01-17· cited 96×
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. HorstSupreme Court· 1876-12-18· cited 367×
- The Lafayette Ins. Co. v. FRENCHSupreme Court· 1856-04-25· cited 348×
- Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1892-05-16· cited 303×
- Ex Parte FISKSupreme Court· 1885-03-02· cited 247×
- Harkness v. HydeSupreme Court· 1879-04-21· cited 220×
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. McBrideSupreme Court· 1891-05-25· cited 163×
- York v. StateTexas Supreme Court· 1889-05-07· cited 126×
- York v. TexasSupreme Court· 1890-11-03· cited 124×
- New England Mutual Life Insurance v. WoodworthSupreme Court· 1884-03-31· cited 84×
- Roberts v. LewisSupreme Court· 1892-04-25· cited 52×
- Texas Land & Mortgage Co. v. WorshamTexas Supreme Court· 1890-03-18· cited 25×
- St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Co. v. WhitleyTexas Supreme Court· 1890-04-29· cited 22×
- Kauffman v. WoottersSupreme Court· 1891-02-02· cited 18×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.