Subsection (d) of this section is added to give statutory recognition to the weight of authority concerning a rule of venue as to which there has been a sharp conflict of decisions. However, this ambiguity will be obviated in the future by the omission of such reference. The argument that an action could be brought in the district where one defendant resided and a nonresident defendant was “found,” was rejected in Camp v. The use of the word “found” made section 111 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., ambiguous. In subsection (c), references to defendants “found” within a district or voluntarily appearing were omitted. Reference to “all plaintiffs” and “all defendants” were substituted for references to “the plaintiff” and “the defendant,” in view of many decisions holding that the singular terms were used in a collective sense. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co., D.C., 1943, 49 F.Supp. Word “reside” was substituted for “whereof he is an inhabitant” for clarity inasmuch as “inhabitant” and “resident” are synonymous. Word “action” was substituted for “suit” in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Provision in section 111 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., that a district court may proceed as to parties before it although one or more defendants do not reside in the district, and that its judgment shall be without prejudice to such absent defendants, was omitted as covered by rule 19(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The portion of section 112 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to venue generally constitutes this section and the parts relating to arrest of the defendant, venue and process in stockholders’ actions constitute sections 1401, 1693, and 1695 of this title. Section consolidates section 111 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with part of section 112 of such title.

Texas venue principal definition