Coffin v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Coffin v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R.

118 F. 688, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5215

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedOctober 11, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 F. 688 (Coffin v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coffin v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R., 118 F. 688, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5215 (circtsdny 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This action was begun in the state court by service of summons without complaint on September 3, 1902, On September 19th defendant removed the cause to this court, its petition “averring that the matter in dispute was in excess of $2,000. The complaint has since been served. It sets out a cause of action against defendant for personal injuries resulting from a collision, and asks damages to the amount of $2,000. Under similar circumstances it was held in Zinkeisen v. Hufschmidt, Fed. Cas. No. 18,214, that a motion to remand should be denied. It would seem, however, that such a ruling deprives the plaintiff of his undoubted right to elect for what amount of damages he will sue. If he is content to ask for a measure of relief so small that the federal courts cannot take jurisdiction, in order to keep the cause in the state court, there is no good reason why he should not do so. In this circuit, with its overcrowded calendars, the removal of controversies which can be tried in the state courts is a practice to be discouraged.

Motion denied.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

This action was begun in the state court by service of summons without complaint on September 3, 1902, On September 19th defendant removed the cause to this court, its petition “averring that the matter in dispute was in excess of $2,000. The complaint has since been served. It sets out a cause of action against defendant for personal injuries resulting from a collision, and asks damages to the amount of $2,000. Under similar circumstances it was held in Zinkeisen v. Hufschmidt, Fed. Cas. No. 18,214, that a motion to remand should be denied. It would seem, however, that such a ruling deprives the plaintiff of his undoubted right to elect for what amount of damages he will sue. If he is content to ask for a measure of relief so small that the federal courts cannot take jurisdiction, in order to keep the cause in the state court, there is no good reason why he should not do so. In this circuit, with its overcrowded calendars, the removal of controversies which can be tried in the state courts is a practice to be discouraged.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 F. 688, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffin-v-philadelphia-w-b-r-circtsdny-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack