Suttle v. Reich Bros. Constr. Co.
333 U.S. 163 (1948)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Suttle v. Reich Bros. Constr. Co., 333 U.S. 163 (1948)

Suttle v. Reich Bros. Construction Co.

No. 214

Argued December 18, 1947

Decided March 8, 1948

333 U.S. 163

Syllabus

A resident and citizen of Mississippi brought an action based on diversity of citizenship in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against a partnership and its individual members who were residents of the Western District of Louisiana and a Texas corporation which had qualified to do business in Louisiana and made itself amenable to suit in the federal courts for either the Eastern or Western District of that State.

Held: the venue was improper as to the partnership and its individual members, and the suit was properly dismissed as to them, since none of the parties was a resident of the Eastern District of Louisiana within the meaning of §§ 51 and 52 of the Judicial Code. Pp. 333 U. S. 164-169.

(a) The "residence" of a corporation, within the meaning of the venue statutes, is only in the state and district in which it was incorporated. Pp. 333 U. S. 166-168.

(b) While, concededly, the Texas corporation had made itself amenable to suit in the federal courts of either district in Louisiana by qualifying to do business in that State, such action on the part of the corporation did not constitute a waiver by the partnership and its individual members of the privileges conferred upon them by the venue statutes. P. 333 U. S. 168.

161 F.2d 289 affirmed.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed as to respondents (residents of the Western District), on the ground of improper venue, a suit brought against them and a foreign corporation by a resident of Mississippi. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 161 F.2d 289. This Court granted certiorari. 332 U.S. 755. Affirmed, p. 333 U. S. 169.

Page 333 U. S. 164

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.