Hayat Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Northern Assur. Co.

KNOX, District Judge. The within motion must he denied. The defendant, being a British corporation, is a citizen and resident of that sovereignty, even; though it does business within the state of New York. See Baumgarten v. Alliance Assurance Co. (C. C.) 153 F. 301; Martin v. B. & O. R. R., 151 U. S. 673, 14 S. Ct. 533, 38 L. Ed. 311; National S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 1 S. Ct. 58, 27 L. Ed. 87. As a nonresident foreign corporation, the defendant was subject to suit in this court at the hands of plaintiff. See Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 S. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964, and In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 14 S. Ct. 221, 37 L. Ed. 1211. It is, consequently, entitled to remove the present action to this court, and the authority therefor is the second sentence of section 71 of title 28 US CA. See Baumgarten v. Alliance Assurance Co., supra; Attleboro Mfg. Co. v. Frankfort Marine, etc., Ins. Co. (D. C.) 202 F. 293; Wind River Lumber Co. v. Frankfort Marine, etc. (C. C. A.) 196 F. 340. Also Niccum v. Northern Assur. Co. (D. C.) 17 F.(2d) 160; Schotis et al. v. North Coast Stevedoring Co. (D. C.) 24 F.(2d) 591, 592, and Best v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (D. C.) 243 F. 789.