Petitioner, a resident and citizen of Mississippi, brought a negligence action based upon diversity of citizenship in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, joining as defendants Highways Insurance Underwriters, a Texas corporation qualified to do business in Louisiana, and respondents, Reich Brothers Construction Co., a partnership, and its individual members, residents of the Western District of Louisiana. Respondent, Reich Brothers, moved to dismiss on the ground of improper venue under sections 51 and 52 of the Judicial Code which in effect provide that in diversity cases, suit shall be brought only in the district where either the plaintiff or defendant resides except where there are two or more defendants residing in different districts of the state, in which case suit may be brought in either district. Respondents claimed that Highways Insurance Underwriters was not a resident of the Eastern District within the terms of the code; and therefore, respondents could not properly be sued as co-defendants in that district. The district court dismissed as to respondents and upon petitioner's appeal to the circuit court the judgment of dismissal was affirmed. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed. A foreign corporation which has qualified to do business and appointed a local agent to receive service of process in a state is not a "resident" of that state within the meaning of the federal venue statutes. Suttle v. Reich Bros. Construction Co., 333 U.S. 163, 68 S.Ct. 587 (1948).
Daniel W. Reddin III S.Ed.,
FEDERAL COURTS-VENUE-CONSTRUCTION OF SECTIONS 51 AND 52 OF JUDICIAL CODE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss1/20