Court Opinion

ID: 9637726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:17:03.027275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:59.545553
License: Public Domain

FRANK, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in all the foregoing except to this limited extent: It may well be that, if the issue is tried, the trial court will find it impossible to say that the Southern District of New York is the one and only principal place of business of the Association, for the court may find that an equal amount of business is done in some other district so that there may be two (or more)principal places of business. The foregoing opinion as now worded would mean that, in such circumstances, the result would be that an association could be sued nowhere if it were infringing but not infringing in a district in which it had a regular and establshed place of business — regardless of the fact that 48% of its business-was done in a district in which it was not infringing and 48% in another district in-which it was likewise not infringing. In order to carry out the congressional intention —i. e., to make the statute reasonable and workable — I think we should, therefore, hold that the Association here is an inhabitant of, and can be sued in, the Southern District of New York, if that is one of its principal places of doing business.