Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. Dollar S. S. Line

E.D. New York

Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. Dollar S. S. Line

44 F.2d 57, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1392

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedOctober 6, 1930

DocketNo. 4129

StatusPublished

This text of 44 F.2d 57 (Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. Dollar S. S. Line) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. Dollar S. S. Line, 44 F.2d 57, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1392 (E.D.N.Y. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

GALSTON, District Judge.

There are two questions presented. The first is whether, on a motion to remand, this court in its consideration is confined to the allegations of the complaint; and, secondly, whether there has been such waiver by the plaintiff as to defeat its present motion.

In disposing of the first question, it is sufficient to cite Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers’ Finance Company, 264 U. S. 182, 44 S. Ct. 266, 267, 68 L. Ed. 628, 31 A. L. R. 867:

“The right of removal depends upon the case disclosed' by the pleadings when the petition therefor is filed (Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, 215, 26 L. Ed. 514; Ex parte Nebraska, 209 U. S. 436, 444, 28 S. Ct. 581, 52 L. Ed. 876)” etc.

In order to justify removal from the state to the federal court on the ground of a separate controversy between citizens of different states, the whole subject-matter of the suit must be capable of being finally determined as between them and- complete relief afforded as to the separate cause of action, without the presence of the other parties named in the suit. Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407, 26 L. Ed. 823.

In the present case the complaint is so framed that it is impossible from a reading of the complaint to state positively that the whole subject-matter of the suit can be determined in a separate controversy between the plaintiff and the Dollar Steamship' Line.

In the circumstances it would appear that the jurisdiction of this court under U. S. Code, title 28, section 71 (28 USCA § 71), does not attach. If that be so, there could be no waiver by the defendant which would confer jurisdiction on this court. The fact that an answer has been filed herein and a deposition taken are of no consequence. The jurisdiction of the court must be determined by the status of the parties and the nature of the relief asked at the time of the application for removal. Crump v. Thurber, 115 U. S. 56, 5 S. Ct. 1154, 29 L. Ed. 328.

Motion granted.

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

GALSTON, District Judge.

There are two questions presented. The first is whether, on a motion to remand, this court in its consideration is confined to the allegations of the complaint; and, secondly, whether there has been such waiver by the plaintiff as to defeat its present motion.

In disposing of the first question, it is sufficient to cite Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers’ Finance Company, 264 U. S. 182, 44 S. Ct. 266, 267, 68 L. Ed. 628, 31 A. L. R. 867:

“The right of removal depends upon the case disclosed' by the pleadings when the petition therefor is filed (Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, 215, 26 L. Ed. 514; Ex parte Nebraska, 209 U. S. 436, 444, 28 S. Ct. 581, 52 L. Ed. 876)” etc.

In order to justify removal from the state to the federal court on the ground of a separate controversy between citizens of different states, the whole subject-matter of the suit must be capable of being finally determined as between them and- complete relief afforded as to the separate cause of action, without the presence of the other parties named in the suit. Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407, 26 L. Ed. 823.

In the present case the complaint is so framed that it is impossible from a reading of the complaint to state positively that the whole subject-matter of the suit can be determined in a separate controversy between the plaintiff and the Dollar Steamship' Line.

In the circumstances it would appear that the jurisdiction of this court under U. S. Code, title 28, section 71 (28 USCA § 71), does not attach. If that be so, there could be no waiver by the defendant which would confer jurisdiction on this court. The fact that an answer has been filed herein and a deposition taken are of no consequence. The jurisdiction of the court must be determined by the status of the parties and the nature of the relief asked at the time of the application for removal. Crump v. Thurber, 115 U. S. 56, 5 S. Ct. 1154, 29 L. Ed. 328.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 F.2d 57, 1930 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-bros-drug-co-v-dollar-s-s-line-nyed-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack