Case Name: WESTINGHOUSE MACH. CO. v. PRESS PUB. CO. et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1901-06-10
Citations: 110 F. 254
Docket Number: 
Parties: WESTINGHOUSE MACH. CO. v. PRESS PUB. CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 110
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
WESTINGHOUSE MACH. CO. v. PRESS PUB. CO. et al.
(Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.
June 10, 1901.)
Foreign Corporations — Jurisdiction of Federal Courts — Service on Agent.
A federal court does not acquire jurisdiction over a. corporation of another state, domiciled therein, which maintains no regular or éstablisheá place of .business or agent within the district where the suit is brought, by service of process on a person not in fact its agent within the district.
In Equity.
' Sur motion to set aside service and dismiss bill as to the Marinette Iron Works Manufacturing Company.
Bakewell & Bakewell and J'. Snowden Bell, for complainant.
Way, Walker & Morris and Whitaker & Prevost, for defendant Marinette Iron Works Mfg. Co.
Service' on foreign corporations, see note to Eldred v. Palace Car Co., 45 C. C. A. 3.

Opinion:
ACHESON, Circuit Judge.
The Marinette Iron Works Manufacturing Company, specially appearing by counsel for the sole purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, moves the court to set aside the service of the subpoena and dismiss the bill as to it. The bill shows that this company is a corporation of the state of Wisconsin, and domiciled therein, and it clearly appears that it has no regular or established place of business in this district, and has no agent in this district. It further appears that R. W. Beardslee, upon whom the marshal served the subpoena as "local representative of Mari-nette Iron Works Manufacturing Company," is not the local representative of the company, and does not in any manner represent it. It is clear that as to the Marinette Iron Works Manufacturing Company the service here must be set aside, and, under the authorities, the bill as to it should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Eldred v. Palace Car Co. (C. C.) 103 Fed. 209; Eldred v. Palace Car Co. (C. C. A.) 105 Fed. 455; Mecke v. Mineral Co., 35 C. C. A. 151, 93 Fed. 697. And now, June 10, 1901, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that as to the Marinette Iron Works Manufacturing Company the service of the subpoena be, and is, set aside, and the bill is dismissed.