Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY TEXAS v. ALEXANDER.

decided: February 3, 1913.

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS
v.
ALEXANDER.



ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Author: Day

[ 227 U.S. Page 221]

 MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant in error, Alexander, filed his complaint against the plaintiff in error, St. Louis Southwestern Railway

[ 227 U.S. Page 222]

     Company of Texas, a Texas corporation, in the Supreme Court of New York County to recover damagers for loss sustained by him arising from the alleged negligence of the railway company in failing to properly ice and re-ice certain poultry shipped from Waco, Texas, to New York City under a bill of lading given by railway company to the shipper, the Texas Packing Company. Upon the petition of the railway company the case was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Sourhern District of New York. That court denied a motion to vacate and quash service of summons and to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and upon trial judgment was entered for the defendant in error. The District Court, succeeding to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, allowed a writ of error and certified to this court the question of jurisdiction under ยง 238 of the Judicial Code (March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1987).

When the plaintiff in error received the poultry from the Texas Packing Company at Waco on November 25, 1910, for shipment to New York City, it delivered to the packing company a through bill of lading in which it acknowledged receipt of the property and agreed to carry the freight "to its usual place of delivery at said destination, if on its road, otherwise to deliver to another carrier on the route to said destination," and in which was set out, among others, the following conditions:

"SEC. 2. In issuing this bill of lading this company agrees to transport only over its own line, and except as otherwise provided by law acts only as agent with respect to the portion of the route beyond its own line.

"SEC. 3. Claims for loss, damage, or delay must be made in writing to the carrier at the point of delivery or at the point of origin within four months after delivery of the property. . . . Unless claims are so made the carrier shall not be liable."

The route, as shown by the bill of lading, was "Cotton

[ 227 U.S. Page 223]

     Belt to East St. Louis, care of Big 4 E. St. Louis, care of Nickel Plate Route." On December 5, 1910, the freight was delivered in a damaged condition to the defendant in error, to whom the bill of lading had been endorsed.

Alexander brought suit on July 10, 1911, against the plaintiff in error in the Supreme Court of New York County and caused summons to be served upon Lawrence Greer, one of the directors of the plaintiff in error residing in New York, in accordance with the laws of New York. Subsequently the case was removed to the United States Circuit Court on the ground of diversity of citizenship. The plaintiff in error filed a motion to vacate and quash the attempted service of summons and to dismiss the cause "for want of jurisdiction over the person of said St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas, for the reason that said St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas is a foreign corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, is not doing business within the State of New York, is not found within said State and is not amenable to service therein, and has not waived due service of summons herein by voluntary appearance or otherwise." The Circuit Court denied the motion, holding that the service was in accordance with the New York laws, provided the action arose in that State, and that the action did so arise, for, although the contract was made in Texas, it called for delivery in New York, and the bill of lading required that the claim be presented to the carrier at the point of delivery; and holding further that, upon the authority of Atlantic ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.