Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/87723/re-keasbey-mattison-co
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:01:37+00:00

Document:
Appellant In Re Keasbey and Mattison Co.
cases, by the express provision of section 7 of the act of 1881; but the jurisdiction with regard to the court, as well as to the district, in which such suits should be brought, was controlled by the act of 1875, as the only act in force upon the subject. Under the provision of that act, which allowed a defendant to be sued in the district of which he was an inhabitant or in that in which he was found, a corporation could doubtless have been sued either in the district in which it was incorporated or in any district in which it carried on business and had a general agent. Ex Parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369 , 96 U. S. 377 ; New England Ins. Co. v. Woodworth, 111 U. S. 138 , 111 U. S. 146 ; Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444 , 145 U. S. 452 ; Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202 , 146 U. S. 207 .
are citizens of different states, the suit shall be brought in the district of which either party is an inhabitant. And it is established by the decisions of this Court that within the meaning of this act, a corporation cannot be considered a citizen, an inhabitant, or a resident of a state in which it has not been incorporated, and consequently that a corporation incorporated in a State of the Union cannot be compelled to answer to a civil suit at law or in equity in a circuit court of the United States held in another state, even if the corporation has a usual place of business in that state. McCormick Co. v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41 , 134 U. S. 43 ; Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444 ; Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202 . Those cases, it is true, were of the class in which the jurisdiction is founded only upon the fact that the parties are citizens or corporations of different states. But the reasoning on which they proceeded is equally applicable to the other class, mentioned in the same section, of suits arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and the only difference is that, by the very terms of the statute, a suit of this class is to be brought in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant, and cannot, without the consent of the defendant, be brought in any other district, even in one of which the plaintiff is an inhabitant.
When the parties are citizens of different states, so that the case comes within the general grant of jurisdiction in the first part of the section, the defendant, by entering a general appearance in a suit brought against him in a district of which he is not an inhabitant, waives the right to object that it is brought in the wrong district. Interior Construction Co. v. Gibney, ante, 160 U. S. 217 , and cases there cited. But a corporation, by doing business or appointing a general agent in a district other than that in which it is created, does not waive its right, if seasonably availed of, to insist that the suit should have been brought in the latter district. Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co. and Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton, above cited.
brought in any other district than that of which the defendant is an inhabitant had no application to an alien or a foreign corporation sued here, and especially in a suit for infringement of a patent right, and therefore such a firm or corporation might be so sued by a citizen of a state of the Union in any district in which valid service could be made on the defendant. That case is distinguishable from the one now before the court in two essential particulars: first, it was a suit against a foreign corporation, which, like an alien, is not a citizen or an inhabitant of any district within the United States, and was therefore not within the scope or intent of the provision requiring suit to be brought in the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant. See Galveston &c.; Railway v. Gonzales, 151 U. S. 496 . Second, it was a suit for infringement of a patent right, exclusive jurisdiction of which had been granted to the circuit courts of the United States by section 629, cl. 9, and section 711, cl. 5, of the Revised Statutes, reenacting earlier acts of Congress, and was therefore not affected by general provisions regulating the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, concurrent with that of the several states.
In United States v. Mooney, 116 U. S. 104 , it was likewise held that the first section of the Judiciary Act of 1875 did not take away the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by earlier statutes upon the district courts of the United States over suits for the recovery of penalties and forfeitures under the customs laws of the United States.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.