Crane Co. v. Guanica Centrale

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

Crane Co. v. Guanica Centrale

132 F. 713, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5043

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

DecidedSeptember 6, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 132 F. 713 (Crane Co. v. Guanica Centrale) 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

Crane Co. v. Guanica Centrale, 132 F. 713, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5043 (circtsdny 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

RACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The action, which is one to recover $1,022.61 for goods sold and delivered, was brought in the city court of the city of New York. The defendant answered, setting up a counterclaim in the amount of $3,500, and removed the cause into this court. Various steps have been taken since removal, such as demand for bill of particulars, examining witnesses on commission, etc.; but if this court has no jurisdiction under the statute, that circumstance is immaterial. Broadway Ins. Co. v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. (C. C.) 101 Fed. 507.

The single question presented here is whether, in determining what is the matter in the dispute, the amount of the counterclaim shall be added to the amount of the claim, or whether the latter only shall be considered. On this proposition there is a conflict of authority. Mc-Ginnity v. White, 3 Dill. 351, Fed. Cas. No. 8,802; Clarkson v. Manson (C. C.) 4 Fed. 257; La Montagne v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co. (C. C.) 44 Fed. 645. The question is, to say the least, a doubtful one, and where a substantial doubt exists as to the jurisdiction of the-federal court the cause should be remanded.

It is so ordered.

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

RACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The action, which is one to recover $1,022.61 for goods sold and delivered, was brought in the city court of the city of New York. The defendant answered, setting up a counterclaim in the amount of $3,500, and removed the cause into this court. Various steps have been taken since removal, such as demand for bill of particulars, examining witnesses on commission, etc.; but if this court has no jurisdiction under the statute, that circumstance is immaterial. Broadway Ins. Co. v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. (C. C.) 101 Fed. 507.

The single question presented here is whether, in determining what is the matter in the dispute, the amount of the counterclaim shall be added to the amount of the claim, or whether the latter only shall be considered. On this proposition there is a conflict of authority. Mc-Ginnity v. White, 3 Dill. 351, Fed. Cas. No. 8,802; Clarkson v. Manson (C. C.) 4 Fed. 257; La Montagne v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co. (C. C.) 44 Fed. 645. The question is, to say the least, a doubtful one, and where a substantial doubt exists as to the jurisdiction of the-federal court the cause should be remanded.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 F. 713, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 5043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crane-co-v-guanica-centrale-circtsdny-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack