United States Supreme Court Cases & Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444 (1892)

Shaw v. Quincy Mining Company

No. 13, Original

Argued March 8, 1892

Decided May 18, 1892

145 U.S. 444

Syllabus

Under the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1, as corrected by the Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866, a corporation incorporated in one state only cannot be compelled to answer, in a circuit court of the United States held in another state in which it has a usual place of business, to a civil suit, at law or in equity, brought by a citizen of a different state.

This was a petition for a writ of mandamus to the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York to command them to take jurisdiction against the Quincy Mining Company upon a bill in equity filed in that court on September 3, 1891, by the petitioner, described in the bill as a citizen of Massachusetts, in behalf of himself and other stockholders of the Quincy Mining Company, against

"the Quincy Mining Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, and having a usual place of business in the City, County, and State of New York,"

and against certain individuals described in the bill as citizens of the State of New York. Upon that bill a subpoena was issued, directed to the Quincy Mining Company, and, as appeared by the marshal's return thereon, was

Page 145 U. S. 445

served upon it within the Southern District of New York by exhibiting to its secretary the original subpoena and leaving with him a copy. The Quincy Mining Company appeared specially, and moved for an order to set aside the service.

At the hearing of the motion, it appeared that the Quincy Mining Company was a corporation organized for the purpose of mining in the County of Houghton in the upper peninsula of the State of Michigan, under the statute of Michigan of May 11, 1877, c. 113, by § 30 of which

"It shall be lawful for any company associating under this act to provide in the articles of association for having the business office of such company out of this state, and to hold any meeting of the stockholders of board of directors of such company at such office so provided for, but every such company having its business office out of this state shall have an office for the transaction of business within this state, to be also designated in such articles of association,"

and that this company, in its articles of association, did provide as follows:

"The business office of the company here by constituted and formed shall be in the City, County, and State of New York, and another business office is hereby established at the Quincy mine, in the County of Houghton and State of Michigan."

The order to set aside the service was granted by the court, upon the ground (as stated in its return to the rule to show cause why the writ of mandamus should not issue)

"that said Quincy Mining Company is a corporation created and existing under the law of the State of Michigan, and is an inhabitant of the Western District of Michigan, and not an inhabitant of the Southern District of New York. "

Page 145 U. S. 446