
    DONOVAN v. DIXIELAND AMUSEMENT CO.
    (Circuit Court, E. D. New York.
    March 29, 1907.)
    1. CORPORATIONS — JURISDICTION OVER — SERVICE ON OEITCEE TEMPORARILY IN State.
    Jurisdiction over a corporation of another state which has no place of business, and is not doing business, in the state of suit, cannot be acquired by service of process on one of its officers temporarily in such state.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 12, Corporations, ,§ 2613.
    Service of process on foreign corporations, see note to Eldred v. American Palace-Car Co., 45 C. C. A. 3.]
    2. Removal op Causes — Amount in' Controversy — Amendment op Complaint.
    Where the amount claimed by a plaintiff in his complaint in the state conrt is sufficient to give a federal court jurisdiction, and the cause is otherwise removable, the plaintiff cannot defeat such jurisdiction after removal by offering to reduce the amount of his claim.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 42, Removal of Causes, § 133.]
    On Motion to Quash Service and Motion to Remand to State Court.
    Elder & Roehr, for plaintiff.
    Edwin C. Dusenbury, for defendant.
   CHATEIERD, District Judge.

The plaintiff brought suit in the Supreme Court of the state of New York for $13,375, and served his process upon an officer of the defendant, which is a Florida corporation, while this officer was temporarily within the state. The defendant removed .the case into the United States court, and now moves to set aside the service of the summons and complaint on the ground that the-defendant corporation is not doing business within the state of New York, and is not a New York corporation. The plaintiff thereupon made a motion to remand the action to the state court, and has filed an affidavit in which he offers to reduce his claim to the amount of $1,999.

All the questions presented upon these motions are considered, and the numerous cases upon the subject referred to are cited in Johnson v. Computing Scale Co. (C. C.) 139 Fed. 339, and it is unnecessary here to repeat the statements of the court in that case.

The motion to set aside the service will be granted, and the motion to remand and to allow the filing of a release for a portion of the claim will be denied.  