October 25, 1966
UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY
Before WATERMAN, HAYS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
The application for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Nevertheless, as it would be tragic to have this case fully litigated only to ascertain afterwards that the entire litigation had been conducted in a United States District Court which, because of statutory venue requirements, was without jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings, we suggest that the district court lay out a plan of discovery and disclosure designed to develop promptly the evidence pertinent to this venue question. Though we believe the order of June 15, 1966 denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action or to transfer it, which reserved to petitioner leave to renew, is an order our court should not affect by the issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus, we are of the belief that it is most desirable to have the proceedings below quickly reach a posture where the deferred issue may be resolved.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.