Goldlawr v. Heiman Et Al‪.‬

This private antitrust action for treble damages and other relief under ?? 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and ? 4 of the Clayton Act was brought by the petitioner against a number of defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After hearings on a motion to dismiss the action on grounds of improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the Pennsylvania District Court agreed that venue was improperly laid as to two of the corporate defendants because they were neither inhabitants of, "found" nor transacting business in Pennsylvania, these being the alternative prerequisites for venue under ? 12 of the Clayton Act. That court refused to dismiss the action as to these defendants, however, choosing instead to use its authority under 28 U. S. C. ? 1406 (a) to transfer it to the Southern District of New York where, because the defendants could be found and transacted business, venue was proper and personal jurisdiction could be obtained over them by service of process under ? 12. These two corporate defendants then appeared in the New York District Court and moved to have the case dismissed by that court on the ground that the Pennsylvania District Court had not had personal jurisdiction over them and, lacking such personal jurisdiction, it had not had power under ? 1406 (a) to transfer the