Opinion ID: 1487571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction in personam.

Text: McBride claims he is entitled to maintain his action under 47 U.S.C. § 406, 47 U.S.C.A. § 406, providing: The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction upon the relation of any person alleging any violation, by a carrier subject to this chapter, of any of the provisions of this chapter which prevent the relator from receiving service in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio, or in interstate or foreign transmission of energy by radio, from said carrier at the same charges, or upon terms or conditions as favorable as those given by said carrier for like communication or transmission under similar conditions to any other person, to issue a writ or writs of mandamus against said carrier commanding such carrier to furnish facilities for such communication or transmission to the party applying for the writ. The district court held that the action, in effect for a writ of mandamus, should have been brought by someone other than McBride, apparently the Attorney General, for him as relator. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 81(b), 28 U.S.C.A., has abolished writs of mandamus and substituted a motion or complaint. We think that, assuming that when Sec. 406 was passed the relator should have entitled his action as U. S. ex rel., etc., or the Attorney General ex rel., etc., Rule 81(b) now has substituted the simpler process and made unnecessary the mere formality of pleading in the relator form.