Document: 384 U.S. 202 86 S.Ct. 1394 16 L.Ed.2d 474 The PURE OIL COMPANY, Petitioner,v.Pascual SUAREZ. No. 692. Argued April 19, 1966. Decided May 16, Eberhard P. Deutsch, New Orleans, La., for petitioner. Arthur Roth, Miami, Fla., respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent Suarez is a seaman who was employed on S.S. Pure Oil, owned and operated by petitioner, Oil Company. brought this action against company in United States District Court Southern Florida to recover damages personal injuries allegedly suffered course his employment. He sued negligence under Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U.S.C. § 688 (1964 ed.), alternatively theory that vessel unseaworthy. Company moved transfer case Northern Illinois ground venue improper Florida. denied motion, certifying question interlocutory appeal Appeals 28 1292(b) ed.). That court affirmed ruling Court, 346 F.2d 890. Certiorari granted, 382 972, 549, 15 464, order determine whether decision below inconsistent with Court's Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 222, 77 787, 786, resolve conflict among circuits score.1 We do not find controlling, affirm judgment Appeals. 2 which ultimately governs issue before us,2 contains following provision: 3 'Jurisdiction such actions shall be district defendant employer resides or principal office located.' 688. 4 Preliminarily it should noted although provision framed jurisdictional terms, has held refers only venue, Panama R. Johnson, 264 375, 44 391, 68 L.Ed. 748. It conceded as enacted originally interpreted statute would authorize instance, corporate residence traditionally meant place incorporation, Ohio, Oil's Illinois. held, however, had been redefined expanded general statute, 1391(c) passed 1948. provides: 5 'A corporation may any judicial incorporated licensed business doing business, regarded purposes.' (Emphasis added.) 6 If definition applicable Act provision, properly Florida, where transacted substantial amount business. hold does so apply proper. 7 effect broaden requirements corporations providing forum 'is business.' See Moore, Commentary Judicial Code 193 194 (1949); Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice Procedure 80, at 386 (Wright rev. 1960). seems manifest change made bring law tune modern concepts operations.3 here involves reach these changes. redefinition clearly touches diversity federal-question provisions §§ 1391(a) (b). Although there no elucidation from statutory history intended special provisions, liberalizing purpose underlying its enactment generality language support view applies all statutes using criterion, least absence contrary restrictive indications statute. 8 This basically consistent purposes whose thrust primarily directed but rather giving seamen substantive rights federal their vindication. In doing, provided more generous choice than have available time Compare March 3, 1911, c. 231, 50, 51, 36 1101. Though one aspect phrased terms 'residence,' applied then generally understood mean see re Keasbey Mattison Co., 160 221, 229, 273, 275, 40 402, also permitted suit located. p. 203, supra. Moreover, nothing legislative Act4 indicate framers use 'residence' anything referent doctrines rules, might alter future.5 9 sole authority thought stand way reading embrace 787. A consideration setting reveals must taken limited particular construction presented there. concerned interrelation governing patent infringement suits, 1400(b) new carried over into 1400(b). holding, based factors inapplicable us today. 10 First, section itself revised 19486 same contained 1391(c). did directly concern scope Rather, inquired evidence revealing congressional respect changes 1400(b), concluded Congress wished remain substance precisely revision. background relevance determination latter's reenacted contemporaneously Thus, show negativing natural two sections together. 11 Second, relied heavily revisers' maintain Stonite Melvin Lloyd 315 561, 62 780, 1026. recognized were reasons why predecessor Confusion engendered decisions holding infringers could wherever they found, even though newly 1887 venue. U.S., 563—565, 781, 782. 1897, 29 695, specifically narrow suits. Fourco, after determining 1948 revision introduce merely letter original enactment. 12 presents quite different history. As minor major enactment, attention terms; indeed, first report House-Senate Conference Committee, H.R.Rep. 1107, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 19—20 (1920), apparently never discussed committee reports floor either House. unlikely infuse concept meaning impervious standards effected statutes. can said reasonable certainty liberalize see, supra, 205, unlike rule constrict it. conclude here, contrast situation dealt basic intent best furthered carrying broader Act. 13 Affirmed. Third Circuit's Leith Transport 321 591, Fourth Fanning Fruit 355 147, followed Fifth present case. stated met if, an both unseaworthiness F.2d, 891. Because our disposition we occasion pass upon issue, raised Corp. Cir., 233 885, 887, 'The rationale sharp break ancient formulae obviously response conviction 'intolerable if traditional 'presence' kept being creating liabilities." reversed later (infra, pp. 206—207), validity observation questioned. Section 33 Merchant Marine 1920, 1007. creation maintenance national merchant marine fleet. part 33, dealing seamen's relief, introduced Senate amendment House bill, without discussion. 59 Cong.Rec. 7044 (1920). added think conclusions are vitiated fact application wider makes alternative 'principal office' latter superfluous regards employers. continues serve when corporation. Nor come office,' unless deemed origins, proposition found. reads: 'Any civil resides, committed acts regular established

Category: 8