From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carter-Beveridge Drilling Co. v. Hughes

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 16, 1963
323 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1963)

Opinion

No. 20264.

October 16, 1963.

Scott Tennyson, Jackson, Miss., Heidelberg, Woodliff Franks, Jackson, Miss., Lemle Kelleher, New Orleans, La., of counsel, for appellant.

Thomas R. Crews, Jackson, Miss., Lucius F. Suthon, New Orleans, La., Alexander, Herring Crews, Jackson, Miss., of counsel, for appellee.

Before RIVES and JONES, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, Jr., District Judge.


Contrary to appellant's position, we hold that the venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) are not applicable to corporations suing as plaintiffs. The effect of the statute is that a corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such defendant corporation is considered a resident of the judicial district for venue purposes. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(c); Robert E. Lee Co., Inc. v. Veatch, 301 F.2d 434 (C.A. 4, 1961), cert. denied 371 U.S. 813, 83 S.Ct. 23, 9 L.Ed.2d 55 (1962).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Carter-Beveridge Drilling Co. v. Hughes

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 16, 1963
323 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1963)
Case details for

Carter-Beveridge Drilling Co. v. Hughes

Case Details

Full title:CARTER-BEVERIDGE DRILLING CO., Inc., Appellant, v. J. Willis HUGHES…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Oct 16, 1963

Citations

323 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1963)

Citing Cases

D C Electronics, Inc. v. Schlesinger

But did this broadening of the venue rules apply equally to plaintiff corporations? Upon a reading of the…

City of Burbank v. General Electric Company

The split of authority on this issue is almost as marked as is the unaniminity of opinion with respect to the…