Menasha Wooden Ware Co. v. Southern Oregon Co.

Good Law
156 C.C.A. 511·244 F. 83·1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1992
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 16, 1917No. 2852California1,500 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Morrow, J.

(after stating the facts as above)/ 1. There is a preliminary question of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this action in the District Court raised by the defendant Flanagan & Bennett Bank. The suit in which the money in controversy was deposited with the clerk of the court was brought by the Southern Oregon Company, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Oregon. The other parties to that action were citizens of the state of Oregon. The Southern Oregon Company could not bring that suit in a federal court in Oregon because of a lack of diverse citizenship in the parties to the suit.. The plaintiff in this case is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, and invokes the jurisdiction of the federal court on the ground of diverse citizenship. The objection to the jurisdiction of the District Court was raised by general demurrer to the complaint, and is based upon the first paragraph of section 24 of the Judicial Code (Act of March 3, 1911, 36 Slat. 1091), which provides, among other things, that:

[1] The obvious answer to this objection of jurisdiction is that, this is not a suit to recover upon…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.