Blunt v. Southern Ry. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Alabama

Blunt v. Southern Ry. Co.

155 F. 499, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5275

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Alabama

DecidedAugust 6, 1907

DocketNo. 1,285

StatusPublished

This text of 155 F. 499 (Blunt v. Southern Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blunt v. Southern Ry. Co., 155 F. 499, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5275 (circtsdal 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

TOURMIN, District Judge.

If there are several coplaintiffs, the intention of the law is that each must be competent .to sue, or if there be several defendants, each defendant must be liable to be sued, in the federal court, or the jurisdiction cannot be entertained. The controversy is not between citizens of different states, unless all the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons on the other side. See note to Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 1, 18 Stat. 470 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 508], in 4 Fed. St. Ann. p. 294, and- authorities cited therein.

The test of the right of removal is that the case must be one over which the Circuit Court might have exercised original jurisdiction under section 1, Act March 3, 1875, as amended. Boston & Montana Consol. Copper & Silver Min. Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 188 U. S. 640, 23 Sup. Ct. 434, 47 L. Ed. 626. See note to section 2 of said act in 4 Fed. St. Ann. pp. 315, 316, and authorities therein cited.-

'' An action- of tort, which may be brought against- one or more persons, and which is brought against two of them jointly, contains no separate controversy which will authorize its removal by one of them into the Circuit Court of the United States. Powers v. C. & O. R. Co., 169 U. S. 96, 18 Sup. Ct. 264, 42 L. Ed. 673; C. & O. R. Co. v. Dixon, 179 U. S. 135, 21 Sup. Ct. 67, 45 L. Ed. 121; Weaver v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (C. C.) 125 Fed. 155; Fox v. Mackay (C. C.) 60 Fed. 4.

Whether an action is one involving a separate controversy as to one of the defendants must .be determined .by what is alleged in the complaint. Ward v. Franklin (C. C.) 110 Fed. 795 ; Harley v. Home Ins. Co. (C. C.) 125 Fed. 792; Fogarty v. South. Pac. Co. (C. C.) 123 Fed. 973.

_ By the allegations of the complaint, and on the authorities cited supra, it appears to me that this cause has Been improperly removed into'this court; and it is therefore ordered that the .same.be, and it is hereby, remanded to the state circuit court.

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

TOURMIN, District Judge.

If there are several coplaintiffs, the intention of the law is that each must be competent .to sue, or if there be several defendants, each defendant must be liable to be sued, in the federal court, or the jurisdiction cannot be entertained. The controversy is not between citizens of different states, unless all the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons on the other side. See note to Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 1, 18 Stat. 470 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 508], in 4 Fed. St. Ann. p. 294, and- authorities cited therein.

The test of the right of removal is that the case must be one over which the Circuit Court might have exercised original jurisdiction under section 1, Act March 3, 1875, as amended. Boston & Montana Consol. Copper & Silver Min. Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 188 U. S. 640, 23 Sup. Ct. 434, 47 L. Ed. 626. See note to section 2 of said act in 4 Fed. St. Ann. pp. 315, 316, and authorities therein cited.-

'' An action- of tort, which may be brought against- one or more persons, and which is brought against two of them jointly, contains no separate controversy which will authorize its removal by one of them into the Circuit Court of the United States. Powers v. C. & O. R. Co., 169 U. S. 96, 18 Sup. Ct. 264, 42 L. Ed. 673; C. & O. R. Co. v. Dixon, 179 U. S. 135, 21 Sup. Ct. 67, 45 L. Ed. 121; Weaver v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (C. C.) 125 Fed. 155; Fox v. Mackay (C. C.) 60 Fed. 4.

Whether an action is one involving a separate controversy as to one of the defendants must .be determined .by what is alleged in the complaint. Ward v. Franklin (C. C.) 110 Fed. 795 ; Harley v. Home Ins. Co. (C. C.) 125 Fed. 792; Fogarty v. South. Pac. Co. (C. C.) 123 Fed. 973.

_ By the allegations of the complaint, and on the authorities cited supra, it appears to me that this cause has Been improperly removed into'this court; and it is therefore ordered that the .same.be, and it is hereby, remanded to the state circuit court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 F. 499, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 5275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blunt-v-southern-ry-co-circtsdal-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack