Case Name: WIENBROER v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION et al.
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-05-29
Citations: 299 F. 972
Docket Number: 
Parties: WIENBROER v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 299
Pages: 972–974

Head Matter:
WIENBROER v. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION et al.
(District Court, E. D. New York.
May 29, 1924.)
1. Seamen @=>29(5) — Jurisdiction of action for injury; “district’’ of suit.
The provision of Merchant Marine Act 1920, § 33 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 8337a), requiring an action by a seaman for personal injury to be brought in the court of the district-in which the defendant employer resides or has his principal office, does not mean a federal court district, where the action is brought in ,a state court, but a state district, and where brought in a court of New York it must be in the county in which defendant resides or has its principal office.
[Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, District.]
2. Corporations @=>503(1) — Residence of domestic corporation for jurisdictional purposes is at place of its principal office.
Under General Corporation Law N. Y. § 3, subd. 9, the residence of a domestic corporation for jurisdictional purposes is in the county where its principal office is located and its general business carried on.
At Law. Action by Bernard W. Wienbroer against the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation and the Munson Steamship Line. On motion by defendants for judgment of dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
Granted.
Frederick R. Graves, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Ralph C. Greene, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Edgar G. Wandless, of New York City, of counsel, appearing specially for defendant United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, only, and Nathan A. Smyth, of New York City, appearing specially for defendant Munson Steamship Line, for purpose of this motion only), for defendants.

Opinion:
CAMPBELL, District Judge.
This is a motion made by both defendants, pursuant to section 278 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for a judgment dismissing the complaint herein, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendants. The action has been removed to this court from the New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, and the defendants have both appeared specially for the purpose of making this motion.
This action is brought under the Merchant Marine Act of June 5, 1920, c. 250, § 33 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 8337a), for damages for injuries alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff by the negligence of the defendants, their agents or servants, aboard a ship owned or lease.d by them. The complaint alleges that the defendant Munson Steamship Line was and now is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York, and at all said times was and now is doing business in the state of New York, with its principal office for the regular transaction of business in the borough of Manhattan, city, county, and state of New York.
The county of Richmond is in the Eastern district of New York, while the county of New York is in the Southern district of New York, as the said state is divided into federal court districts. The state of New York is under the state Constitution divided into judicial districts, the county of Richmond being in the Second judicial district, and the county of New York in the First judicial district.
In my opinion, however, Congress ,did not, by the words "the court of the district in which the employer defendant resides or in which his principal office is located, mean the federal court district when the action is brought in the state courts, nor the state judicial district when the action is brought in the New York state courts, but did mean, when the action is brought in the New York state courts, the county in which the defendant resides or has his principal office, as the county is in reality the district for the purpose of determining where actions are to be brought.
Under the New York state law the plaintiff is bound, when bringing an action in the state Supreme Court, to designate the county in which the trial of the action is desired. See rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Practice of the state of New York, so much thereof as is necessary for consideration in the case at bar reading as follows:
"Rule 45. Requisites of Summons. — The summons must state the court in which the action is brought, the names of the parties, and, if in the Supreme Court, the county which the plaintiff designates as the place of trial."
And provision is made for holding terms of court, including Trial Terms with juries, in each of the counties of the state. The state judicial districts are principally political subdivisions or units for the election of Supreme Court judges.
The plaintiff having alleged that the principal office of the defendant was in the county of New York, and said county being in the Southern district of New York (federal), the action was not brought in the district where the principal office of the defendant was located.
The remaining question to be decided, therefore, is: Did the defendant reside in Richmond county, which is in the Eastern district of New York (federal), and, if it did not, then the action was not brought in "the court of the district in which the employer defendant resides or in which his principal office is located." The defendant is a New York corporation, and plaintiff and defendant both say that defendant's principal office is in New York county, and therefore, in my opinion, its residence for jurisdictional purposes is New York county, and not Richmond county. New York General Corporation Daw (Laws of 1909, c. 28 [Consol. Laws, c. 23]) §' 3, subd. 9, which reads as follows:
"The term 'office of a corporation' means its principal office within the state, or principal place of business within the state if it has no principal office therein."
In general, it may be said that the corporations are residents of the county where the office of the company is located and its general business carried on. Rossie Iron Works v. Westbrook, 59 Hun, 345, 13 N. Y. Supp. 141; Conroe v. National Ins. Co., 10 How. Prac. 403. On a motion for a change of venue, it has been held that a domestic corporation is deemed to be a resident of the county in which it has its principal office and place of business. Finch School v. Finch, 144 App. Div. 687, 129 N. Y. Supp. 1.
• The defendant corporation, Munson Steamship Line, being a creature of the state of New York, it was within the power of the state to determine the place of residence of the corporation for jurisdictional purposes, and we therefore find that New York county was the place of residence of the defendant, Munson Steamship Line, and that the action commenced by the plaintiff was not commenced in the federal court district, state judicial district, or county in which the defendant, Munson Steamship Line, resided, or in which its principal office is located.
The main questions presented on this motion have been fully discussed by me in the opinion I have this day filed in the action of Luis Caceres v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation and United States Line, 299 Fed. 968, and on that opinion, as herein supplemented, the motion made by the defendants for judgment dismissing the complaint herein as to both defendants, on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of the person of either or both of the defendants, is granted with costs.
Settle on notice.
<@=»For other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes