International Milling Co. v. Columbia Transportation Co.
292 U.S. 511 (1934)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

International Milling Co. v. Columbia Transportation Co., 292 U.S. 511 (1934)

International Milling Co. v. Columbia Transportation Co.

No. 561

Argued February 16, 1934

Decided May 28, 1934

292 U.S. 511

Syllabus

1. In determining whether a suit brought in a state court by one foreign corporation against another on a foreign cause of action is an unreasonable burden on the interstate commerce conducted by the defendant, and is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the court, the fact that the plaintiff is a resident of the state, in the sense that its business is there, is of high significance. P. 292 U. S. 519.

2. The business of a Delaware corporation, with its principal office in Ohio, was carriage of merchandise by steamer in interstate and

Page 292 U. S. 512

foreign commerce, between ports on the Great Lakes and tributary waters including ports of Minnesota. Its vessels navigated waters of Lake Superior over which Minnesota and Wisconsin have concurrent jurisdiction, and it maintained at Duluth, Minnesota, an agent who did whatever was necessary to facilitate loading and unloading of cargoes. When one of its vessels, bearing cargo partly destined for Duluth arrived in adjacent waters within the concurrent jurisdiction, it was attached in an action brought by another Delaware corporation, whose business was in Minnesota, on a cause of action for negligence in the transportation of cargo between Chicago, Illinois, and Buffalo, New York.

Held:

(1) That maintenance of the action would not be an unreasonable burden upon interstate commerce. P. 292 U. S. 520.

(2) The forum being in other respects appropriate, jurisdiction was not lost because the property subjected to the attachment was an instrumentality of commerce, nor because the chief witnesses on the trial resided in other state. P. 292 U. S. 521.

189 Minn. 516, 250 N.W.190, reversed.

Certiorari, 290 U.S. 622, to review a judgment affirming a judgment which vacated for want of jurisdiction a summons and attachment served on the master of a vessel in an action against the owner for negligence in the transportation of cargo. See 189 Minn. 507, 250 N.W. 186.

Page 292 U. S. 515

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.