Platt v. Phœnix Assur. Co. of London

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont

Platt v. Phœnix Assur. Co. of London

37 F. 730, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2749

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont

DecidedMarch 14, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 37 F. 730 (Platt v. Phœnix Assur. Co. of London) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Platt v. Phœnix Assur. Co. of London, 37 F. 730, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2749 (circtdvt 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

This suit was begun in the state court, and removed to this court. The plaintiff has moved to remand upon the ground that the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $2,000, required by the act of 1887. The declaration contains a special count upon a policy of insurance of $2,250 on specific property, alleging a total loss, and concluding to the damage of the plaintiff $2,000, “for the recovery of which, with just costs, the plaintiff brings suit;” also the common money counts in asswnpsit for $2,000, concluding to the damage of the plaintiff $2,000, “for the recovery of which with just costs the plaintiff brings suit.” These allegations of damages and claims of recovery, together, amount to $4,000, which, so far .as appears, is the amount in dispute which may be recovered in the suit. Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 501; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424. The motion must therefore be overruled.

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

Wheeler, J.

This suit was begun in the state court, and removed to this court. The plaintiff has moved to remand upon the ground that the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $2,000, required by the act of 1887. The declaration contains a special count upon a policy of insurance of $2,250 on specific property, alleging a total loss, and concluding to the damage of the plaintiff $2,000, “for the recovery of which, with just costs, the plaintiff brings suit;” also the common money counts in asswnpsit for $2,000, concluding to the damage of the plaintiff $2,000, “for the recovery of which with just costs the plaintiff brings suit.” These allegations of damages and claims of recovery, together, amount to $4,000, which, so far .as appears, is the amount in dispute which may be recovered in the suit. Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 501; Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424. The motion must therefore be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F. 730, 1889 U.S. App. LEXIS 2749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/platt-v-phnix-assur-co-of-london-circtdvt-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack