Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JACONSKI v. MCCLOSKEY & CO.

November 19, 1958

Vincent JACONSKI
v.
McCLOSKEY & COMPANY



The opinion of the court was delivered by: LORD

The civil action for damages was commenced by plaintiff, Vincent Jaconski, against defendant, McCloskey & Company, in this Court by the filing of a Summons and Complaint on August 11, 1958. In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges that on April 2, 1958, while in the course of his employment by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, he was injured when struck by 'a heavy metal extension nipple.' He further alleges that the occurrence took place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and that the object with which he was struck was in the exclusive possession and control of the defendant, McCloskey & Company (hereinafter referred to as 'McCloskey').

McCloskey denies that this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this case on the ground that the requisite diversity of citizenship is lacking. In support of its position on such preliminary motion, defendant points out that:

 1. Paragraph 1 of the Complaint alleges that plaintiff, Vincent Jaconski, is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

 2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint alleges that the defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware -- which McCloskey admits.

 3. Defendant avers, however, that it is also a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, since its principal place of business is located at 1620 West Thompson Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It claims this status by virtue of the Act of Congress designated as Public Law 85-554 (72 Stat. 415, 28 U.S.C.A. 1332, as amended July 25, 1958).

 Plaintiff opposes the motion by saying that the 1958 amendment to the Judicial Code does not divest this Court of diversity jurisdiction. His argument is succinct and quotable:

 'The amendment of 1958 merely provides that a corporation is deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business. The effect of the amendment can be no more extensive than if the defendant, originally incorporated in Delaware, had also incorporated in Pennsylvania. We are, therefore, confronted with a problem which has vexed the Courts for many years -- the question of diversity in suits by or against 'multistate corporations.' Despite the great volume of literature on the subject (cf. Moore's Federal Practice, Volume 1), this Court is not here required to study or pass upon this knotty question.

 'The rule in the Third Circuit was laid down in Gavin v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co., 3 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 104, in which it was held that a New Jersey citizen could bring suit in the District Court of New Jersey against a defendant which was a multistate corporation, incorporated both in New Jersey and New York. Our Court of Appeals recognized that other Circuits disagreed with its conclusion, but adopted it nevertheless. It must be conceded that the Third Circuit view has been criticized in Seavey v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 1 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 485, but our Court of Appeals has never receded from its position.'

 The plaintiff's argument is based upon his premise that

 '* * * The effect of the amendment can be no more extensive than if the defendant, originally incorporated in Delaware, had also incorporated in Pennsylvania.'

 This Court finds itself unable to accept that postulate, and is furthermore of opinion that the plaintiff's reading of the Gavin case is unwarrantedly broad.

 The amendment (which may be seen in the August 5, 1958 issue of the 1958 U.S. Congressional and Administrative News at pages 2333-2334) in pertinent part is as follows:

 'Public Law 85-554; 72 Stat. 415 (H.R. 11102)

 'An Act amending the jurisdiction of district courts in civil actions with regard to the amount in controversy ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.