Du Vaul v. Miller

13 F.R.D. 197, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3617
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedSeptember 22, 1952
DocketNo. 7567
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 13 F.R.D. 197 (Du Vaul v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Du Vaul v. Miller, 13 F.R.D. 197, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3617 (W.D. Mo. 1952).

Opinion

REEVES, Chief Judge.

Based upon assertions that Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Washington is an insurance carrier and paid the plaintiff certain benefits arising from his claimed injuries, the defendants now seek to have said insurance carrier named as a party plaintiff. The defendants rely on the case of Gas Service Co. v. Hunt, 183 F.2d 417, 419, where the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals determined' an identical question. That court was construing the statute law and decisions of the State of Kansas, which appeared to be exactly like those of Missouri on the subject of the rights of a subrogee, such as in this case. The court held that the right against a wrongdoer is substantive yet, said the court:

“But the person in whose name the action may be prosecuted for the enforcement of the substantive right is procedural, not substantive.”

The court supported this ruling by citing the case of Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Callahan, 10 Cir., 127 F.2d 32.

Counsel for the plaintiff relies upon contrary opinions of the Supreme Court of Missouri, namely, Smith v. Siedhoff, 209 S.W.2d 233, loc. cit. 239 and Schumacher v. Leslie, 360 Mo. 1238, 232 S.W.2d 913, loc. cit. 919, and, as well, an opinion of this court in the case of Colorado Milling & Elevator Co. v. American Cyanamid Company, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 191.

[198]*198In the latter case the court relied upon the substantive law of Missouri. A re-examination of Rule 17, as well as Rule 19, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A., convinces us that the question is purely a procedural one in this court and does not change the substantive law of Missouri. Being procedural, the national court would not be bound by the rulings of the state courts. Moreover, it would not impair the rights of the plaintiff to require a joining of the insurance carrier. It would not be prejudicial as urged by counsel, and, accordingly, the motion to join should be sustained and it will be so ordered.

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

Related

In Re Murray
199 B.R. 165 (M.D. Tennessee, 1996)
See v. Emhart Corp.
444 F. Supp. 71 (W.D. Missouri, 1977)
Hughey v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
32 F.R.D. 340 (D. Delaware, 1963)
Smallwood v. Days Transfer, Inc.
165 F. Supp. 929 (W.D. Michigan, 1958)
Poleski v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
21 F.R.D. 579 (D. Maryland, 1958)
Carlson v. Consumers Power Company
164 F. Supp. 692 (W.D. Michigan, 1957)
Travelers Indemnity Company v. Bengtson
231 F.2d 263 (Fifth Circuit, 1956)
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bengtson
231 F.2d 263 (Fifth Circuit, 1956)
Bengtson v. Travelers Indemnity Company
132 F. Supp. 512 (W.D. Louisiana, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 F.R.D. 197, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/du-vaul-v-miller-mowd-1952.