From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lanigan v. Boston Terminal Corp.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Jun 10, 1953
112 F. Supp. 957 (D. Mass. 1953)

Opinion

Civ. A. No. 52-1147.

June 10, 1953.

Matthew L. McGrath, Jr., John R. Riordan, Boston, for plaintiff.

William R. Cook, John F. Drum, Johnson, Clapp, Ives King, Boston, for defendant Pullman Co.

Noel W. Deering, Boston, for defendant Boston Terminal Co.


Defendant Boston Terminal Corporation has moved to dismiss the complaint on three grounds. The first ground, that of lack of proper service, has been waived.

The second ground is that the action was a nullity since it was not brought during the lifetime of the original plaintiff, who died October 11, 1952. While the summons is dated October 16, 1952, it appears from the docket entry and from the date stamp of the Clerk's Office on the original complaint that the complaint was filed on October 10, 1952. The action was, therefore, properly commenced while plaintiff was still alive. Rule 3, F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A.

The third ground alleged is that while there was diversity of citizenship (which is the sole basis for jurisdiction of this court over this action) between defendant, a Massachusetts corporation, and the original plaintiff, a citizen of New York, that diversity no longer exists since the substitution for the deceased plaintiff of her administratrix, who is a Massachusetts citizen. In general, federal jurisdiction depends on the facts as they exist at the time suit is commenced, and is not conferred or divested by later changes. Ford, Bacon Davis, Inc., v. Volentine, 5 Cir., 64 F.2d 800, 801. Loss of diversity of citizenship through substitution of one party for another does not destroy jurisdiction. Grant County Deposit Bank v. McCampbell, 6 Cir., 194 F.2d 469, 472. Specifically, where at the time of filing there was diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendant, the jurisdiction acquired by the court is not lost because, the plaintiff having died, his administrator who is substituted for him is a citizen of the same state as defendant. Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164, 171, 37 U.S. 164, 171, 9 L.Ed. 1041.

Motion to dismiss is denied.


Summaries of

Lanigan v. Boston Terminal Corp.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Jun 10, 1953
112 F. Supp. 957 (D. Mass. 1953)
Case details for

Lanigan v. Boston Terminal Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LANIGAN v. BOSTON TERMINAL CORP. et al

Court:United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date published: Jun 10, 1953

Citations

112 F. Supp. 957 (D. Mass. 1953)

Citing Cases

J. David Gladstone Found. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

“In general, federal jurisdiction depends on the facts as they exist at the time suit is commenced, and is…

Hoffman v. Wair

However, this interpretation of Rule 4(a) contemplates the bona fide and timely compliance with F.R.Civ.P.…