Jones v. Elliott

94 F. Supp. 567, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2187
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia
DecidedDecember 19, 1950
DocketCiv. A. 1211
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 94 F. Supp. 567 (Jones v. Elliott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jones v. Elliott, 94 F. Supp. 567, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2187 (E.D. Va. 1950).

Opinion

BRYAN, District Judge.

On the pattern of Barney v. Latham, 103 U.S. 205, 26 L.Ed. 514; City of Gainesville v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., 277 U.S. 54, 48 S.Ct. 454, 72 L.Ed. 781; and Horne v. Aderhold, D.C. Ga., 1 F.Supp. 690, defendant Elliott’s motion to remand the case as to him is denied. The Court is persuaded that his codefendant, Hahn’s, removal of the action as a Federal officer, under sec. 1442(a) (1), Title 28 United States Code Annotated, brings to this Court the entire case. Charging joint negligence, the complaint will be here tried against the lay as well as the officer defendant. This conclusion is induced too by the succeeding statutory direction, sec. 1447, Title 28 United States Code Annotated, that the Court after removal implead all proper parties. Judicial insistence hat all the litigants thenceforward entrust their case to the Federal court is not, as to the non-removing parties, an unconstitutional arrogation of jurisdiction. State of Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257, 25 L.Ed. 648. It accomplishes, with minimal confusion, the evident Congressional purpose that all suits against officers of the Government, for acts done within the ambit of their authority; be tried only in the courts of the United States. State of Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257, 25 L.Ed. 648, supra.

Failure of Hahn to give notice to Elliott of the removal is not fatal. It may still be given. The procedural statute for removal, sec. 1446, Title 28 United States Code Annotated, prescribes that “the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof to all adverse parties”. Whether the co-defendant is here an adverse party may be debatable, and watchful practice may doubtlessly advise notice to all co-defendants, yet, after all, the notice merely clinches the removal, and delay in the notification should not vitiate a transfer already completed a curia ad curiam.

A decree in accordance with this memorandum will be entered upon presentation by the United States Attorney after submission to other counsel as to form.

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

Related

Adams v. Aero Services International, Inc.
657 F. Supp. 519 (E.D. Virginia, 1987)
Folts v. City of Richmond
480 F. Supp. 621 (E.D. Virginia, 1979)
Pacific Far East Line, Inc. v. Ogden Corp.
425 F. Supp. 1239 (N.D. California, 1977)
First National Bank of Bellevue v. Bank of Bellevue
341 F. Supp. 960 (D. Nebraska, 1972)
Haggard v. Lancaster
320 F. Supp. 1252 (N.D. Mississippi, 1970)
Preston v. Edmondson
263 F. Supp. 370 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1967)
Perez v. Rhiddlehoover
247 F. Supp. 65 (E.D. Louisiana, 1965)
Murphy v. Kodz
351 F.2d 163 (Ninth Circuit, 1965)
Harlem River Produce Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
257 F. Supp. 160 (S.D. New York, 1965)
George G. Allman v. W. H. Hanley
302 F.2d 559 (Fifth Circuit, 1962)
Robert L. Bradford v. Emmet E. Harding
284 F.2d 307 (Second Circuit, 1960)
Goldfarb v. Muller
181 F. Supp. 41 (D. New Jersey, 1959)
Ove Gustavsson Contracting Co. v. Floete
176 F. Supp. 841 (E.D. New York, 1959)
Beleos v. Life and Casualty Insurance Co. of Tenn.
161 F. Supp. 627 (E.D. South Carolina, 1956)
No. 11638
228 F.2d 176 (Third Circuit, 1956)
Sarner v. Mason
228 F.2d 176 (Third Circuit, 1955)
Brown v. Weschler
135 F. Supp. 622 (District of Columbia, 1955)
Kovell v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY
129 F. Supp. 906 (N.D. Ohio, 1954)
De Busk v. Harvin
212 F.2d 143 (Fifth Circuit, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 F. Supp. 567, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-elliott-vaed-1950.