Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.

Background

A Pennsylvania citizen sued an Iowa railroad company for injuries suffered in Colorado and tried to serve the company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The company had an office and a district freight and passenger agent in Philadelphia, who solicited passengers and freight but did not carry goods there or issue the railroad’s own tickets. The railroad challenged the service, and the Circuit Court found the service insufficient because the company was not doing business in that district.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the railroad’s solicitation activities and an advertised agent’s office made the company present in the district so that service on that agent was valid. The Court examined the agent’s duties — soliciting passengers and freight, maintaining clerks and traveling agents, and arranging tickets or prepaid orders through other lines — and concluded those activities were essentially solicitation. The Court held solicitation alone, without carriage or direct receipt of freight or ticketing there, did not show the company was doing business in the district for service purposes. The Court therefore affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Real world impact

The ruling means plaintiffs cannot rely on local advertising or solicitation alone to serve out-of-state carriers in districts where the company does not actually operate trains or receive freight. Because this case rested only on the parties being from different States, the decision narrows where diversity suits can be started against companies that only solicit business locally. The judgment affirming the Circuit Court leaves the service question resolved against the plaintiff here.