Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Burden

Second Circuit

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Burden

53 F.2d 381, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 2676

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 2, 1931

DocketNos. 26, 27

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 53 F.2d 381 (Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Burden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Burden, 53 F.2d 381, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 2676 (2d Cir. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issues presented on this appeal were disposed of in Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Burden, 30 F.(2d) 610, except that since our decision an application was made in the District Court to remand the case to the state court, which was denied. The cause was removed to the federal eourt because of the claimed existence of a diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount involved in the controverey giving jurisdiction to the court. The appellant proceeded to trial on the merits without protest. The court below held that this was an acquiescence in the jurisdiction of the person so as to forfeit the privilege which might have existed to remand the cause to the state court. With that determination, we agree. Matter of Moore, 209 U. S. 490, 28 S. Ct. 585, 706, 52. L. Ed. 904, 14 Ann. Cas. 1164; Mackay v. Uinta Co., 229 U. S. 173, 33 S. Ct. 638, 57 L. Ed. 1138; Bailey v. Texas Co., 47 F.(2d) 153 (C. C. A. 2). The other issues are affirmed on the authority of Fidelity & Deposit Co., v. Burden, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The issues presented on this appeal were disposed of in Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Burden, 30 F.(2d) 610, except that since our decision an application was made in the District Court to remand the case to the state court, which was denied. The cause was removed to the federal eourt because of the claimed existence of a diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount involved in the controverey giving jurisdiction to the court. The appellant proceeded to trial on the merits without protest. The court below held that this was an acquiescence in the jurisdiction of the person so as to forfeit the privilege which might have existed to remand the cause to the state court. With that determination, we agree. Matter of Moore, 209 U. S. 490, 28 S. Ct. 585, 706, 52. L. Ed. 904, 14 Ann. Cas. 1164; Mackay v. Uinta Co., 229 U. S. 173, 33 S. Ct. 638, 57 L. Ed. 1138; Bailey v. Texas Co., 47 F.(2d) 153 (C. C. A. 2). The other issues are affirmed on the authority of Fidelity & Deposit Co., v. Burden, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 F.2d 381, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 2676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fidelity-deposit-co-of-maryland-v-burden-ca2-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack