Best Foods, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha, Ltd.

S.D. New York

Best Foods, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha, Ltd.

39 F.2d 619, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1835

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJuly 23, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 39 F.2d 619 (Best Foods, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Best Foods, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha, Ltd., 39 F.2d 619, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1835 (S.D.N.Y. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

GODDARD, District Judge.

The complaint includes in its allegations: “XVI. That the leakage and loss of said peanut oil was caused either by a defect in the construction of or the defective condition of said tank car at the time that it was loaded with said peanut oil by or in behalf of the defendant, Mitsubishi, or by the wrongful, negligent and careless handling thereof by the defendant, Great Northern Railway Company, or by the wrongful, negligent and careless handling thereof by the defendant, Southern Pacific Company, or by a combination of said causes.”

The plaintiff seeks to recover in but a single cause of action, and there is but a single controversy, though each of the defendants may have a separate defense. The pleadings, in substance, allege that the loss sustained by the plaintiff was due to the fault of one of the defendants or to one or more of them acting in concert or was due to their concurrent negligence. Separable controversies within the meaning of section 28 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 71) are not presented. Louisville & Nashville Rd. Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52, 5 S. Ct. 735, 29 L. Ed. 63; Starin v. New York, 115 U. S. 248, 6 S. Ct. 28, 29 L. Ed. 388; Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527, 12 S. Ct. 726, 36 L. Ed. 528; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Dowell, 229 U. S. 102, 33 S. Ct. 684, 57 L. Ed. 1090; Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191, 1 S. Ct. 171, 27 L. Ed. 131.

Accordingly, the motion to remand to the state court is granted. Settle order on no^C0

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GODDARD, District Judge.

The complaint includes in its allegations: “XVI. That the leakage and loss of said peanut oil was caused either by a defect in the construction of or the defective condition of said tank car at the time that it was loaded with said peanut oil by or in behalf of the defendant, Mitsubishi, or by the wrongful, negligent and careless handling thereof by the defendant, Great Northern Railway Company, or by the wrongful, negligent and careless handling thereof by the defendant, Southern Pacific Company, or by a combination of said causes.”

The plaintiff seeks to recover in but a single cause of action, and there is but a single controversy, though each of the defendants may have a separate defense. The pleadings, in substance, allege that the loss sustained by the plaintiff was due to the fault of one of the defendants or to one or more of them acting in concert or was due to their concurrent negligence. Separable controversies within the meaning of section 28 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 71) are not presented. Louisville & Nashville Rd. Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52, 5 S. Ct. 735, 29 L. Ed. 63; Starin v. New York, 115 U. S. 248, 6 S. Ct. 28, 29 L. Ed. 388; Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527, 12 S. Ct. 726, 36 L. Ed. 528; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Dowell, 229 U. S. 102, 33 S. Ct. 684, 57 L. Ed. 1090; Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191, 1 S. Ct. 171, 27 L. Ed. 131.

Accordingly, the motion to remand to the state court is granted. Settle order on no^C0

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 F.2d 619, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/best-foods-inc-v-mitsubishi-shoji-kaisha-ltd-nysd-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack