Mattoon v. Reynolds

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

Mattoon v. Reynolds

62 F. 417, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

DecidedJune 26, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 62 F. 417 (Mattoon v. Reynolds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mattoon v. Reynolds, 62 F. 417, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871 (circtdct 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

This controversy is between citizens of different states. Tbe original complaint, in the state court, alleged that certain notes were given without consideration, and asked for an injunction restraining the defendant from negotiating-said notes. After tlie time had expired within which the cause might originally have been removed, the plaintiffs filed a new count, alleging fraud, and asking for equitable relief, or for a judgment for $3,000 damages. In due season thereafter, the defendant removed the cause to this court.

The single question presented is whether, by the filing of the substituted complaint, the defendant, acquired a right of removal. The determination of this question depends; upon whether the amended complaint states a new and different cause of action, and one in which the original suit is merged. Yarde v. Railroad Co., 57 Fed. 913; Huskins v. Railroad Co., 37 Fed. 504; Evans v. Dillingham, 43 Fed. 177; State of Texas v. Day Land & Cattle Co., 49 Fed. 593, 596. It is clear that in this case the second count presents a distinct cause of action, — fraud, calling for a distinct remedy at law; money, damages. The allegations contained in the first count and the relief, therein prayed for are incorporated in the second count.

The motion to remand is denied.

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

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

This controversy is between citizens of different states. Tbe original complaint, in the state court, alleged that certain notes were given without consideration, and asked for an injunction restraining the defendant from negotiating-said notes. After tlie time had expired within which the cause might originally have been removed, the plaintiffs filed a new count, alleging fraud, and asking for equitable relief, or for a judgment for $3,000 damages. In due season thereafter, the defendant removed the cause to this court.

The single question presented is whether, by the filing of the substituted complaint, the defendant, acquired a right of removal. The determination of this question depends; upon whether the amended complaint states a new and different cause of action, and one in which the original suit is merged. Yarde v. Railroad Co., 57 Fed. 913; Huskins v. Railroad Co., 37 Fed. 504; Evans v. Dillingham, 43 Fed. 177; State of Texas v. Day Land & Cattle Co., 49 Fed. 593, 596. It is clear that in this case the second count presents a distinct cause of action, — fraud, calling for a distinct remedy at law; money, damages. The allegations contained in the first count and the relief, therein prayed for are incorporated in the second count.

The motion to remand is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 F. 417, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattoon-v-reynolds-circtdct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack