Case Name: PARSONS NON-SKID CO., Limited, et al. v. E. J. WILLIS CO.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1909-12-31
Citations: 176 F. 176
Docket Number: 
Parties: PARSONS NON-SKID CO., Limited, et al. v. E. J. WILLIS CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 176
Pages: 176–176

Head Matter:
PARSONS NON-SKID CO., Limited, et al. v. E. J. WILLIS CO.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
December 31, 1909.)
Parties (§ 51 ) — New Pasties — Right to Being in Additional Defendant.
A foreign corporation, having no place of business within the district, and which could not have been made a defendant when the suit was brought, cannot be brought in merely because it has so contributed to the defense that it will be bound by the decree.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Parties, Dec. Dig. § 51. ]
In Equity. Suit by the Parsons Non-Skid Company, Eimited, and' others against the E. J. Willis Company. On motions.
Motions denied.
Howard P..Denison, for complainants.
Kiddle, Wendell & -Varney, for defendant.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907-to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
NOYES, Circuit Judge.
The motion to compel a witness to answer questions is withdrawn and does not require consideration.
The motion to make Ernest J. Willis a party defendant cannot be granted upon the conditions stated in the complainants' memorandum. Therefore, in accordance with complainants' request, it is denied without prejudice to further proceedings.
The motion to make the Whittaker Chain Treád Companjr a party defendant must be denied. This is a Massachusetts corporation, without any place of business in the Southern district of New York. It could not originally have been joined as a defendant in this suit. The reason urged why it should now be brought in is that .it has so contributed to the defense that it will be bound by the decree. This may be true. It may be established that this corporation is a privy to the suit and will be privy to the judgment. But I know of no principle upon which a court acquires jurisdiction over persons merely because by reason of their conduct they will be bound by its decrees. And if the court has not now jurisdiction over this foreign corporation it cannot order it to be made a party. •