Stone v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.

Citations

• 195 F. 832
• 1912 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1688

Syllabus

<p>Removal of Causes (§ 27*)—Diversity of Citizenship—Nonresidence of Both Parties—“Residence” of Corporation.</p> <p>AYithin the meaning of the provisions of Judiciary Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 1, IS Star. 170, as amended by Act March 3, 1887. c. 373, § 1, 24 Stat. 552, and Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. SGG, § 1, 25 Stat. 433 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 508), that “where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant,” a railroad or other corporation of a state is a resident only of the state by which it is incorporated, and under section 2, which authorizes the removal only of suits “of which the Circuit Courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by the preceding section,” an action brought in a state court by a citizen of another state against a railroad company incorporated in a third state is one of which the federal court in that district is not “given original jurisdiction,” and cannot he removed thereto by the defendant on the ground of diversity of citizenship, although it may have a line and places of business within the district and officers or agents on whom valid service may he made under the state law.</p> <p>|Kd. Note.—For other cases, see Removal of Causes, Cent. Dig. §§ 64-68; Dec. Dig. § 27.*</p> <p>For other definitions, see AVords and Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 6151-6161; vol. 8, p. 7788.</p> <p>Citizenship of corporation for purposes of federal jurisdiction, see notes to St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Newcom, 6 C. C. A. 174; Shipp v. Williams, 10 C. C. A. 249; Mason v. Dullagham, 27 C. C. A. 298.]</p>