
    GRIFFIN WHITE SHOE CO. v. O’CONNOR & GOLDBERG.
    (District Court, E. D. New York.
    October 27, 1921.)
    1. Removal of causes @=>111—Service on foreign corporation in another district not set aside after removal.
    In an action removed from a state court where defendant, a foreign corporation, was served in another federal district of the same state, the service will not be set aside.-
    2. Courts @=>99(1)—Decision in same district not binding, when not followed by later case in the same circuit.
    Where an early decision by a District Judge of the same district has not been followed in a later case in the same circuit, it is not binding on the District Court, as a decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals would be.
    At Eaw. Action by the Griffin White Shoe Company against O’Con-nor & Goldberg. On motion to set aside service of summons.
    Motion denied.
    Thornton & Earle, of New York City, for plaintiff.
    Engelhard, Poliak, Pitcher & Stern, of New York City, for defendant.
    <@=For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
   GARVIN, District Judge.

By special appearance defendant questions the service of summons herein. The action was brought in the New York Supreme Court, Kings county. The defendant is a foreign corporation, and was served in the Southern district of New York. After the action was begun, it was duly removed to this court by petition, and upon a bond having been filed, approved by a justice of the New York Supreme Court. I have been referred to two decisions, both made within this circuit by District Judges. Wange v. Public Service Ry Co. (C. C.) 159 Fed. 189, and Centaur Motor Co. v. Eccleston (D. C.) 264 Fed. 852. Although the earlier decision was made in this district, the fact that it was not followed in the same circuit by a later case justifies me, I think, in holding that, where an early decision in this district by a District Judge has not been followed, it is not binding upon me, as would be a decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals. I have reached this conclusion after some hesitation having in mind the importance of harmony and consistency in judicial decisions, certainly within the same district, and only because the reasoning of the later case is to me more persuasive.

Motion to set aside service denied.  