Sieling & Jarvis Corp. v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc.

Second Circuit

Sieling & Jarvis Corp. v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc.

190 F.2d 557, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2459

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 1951

Docket21998_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 F.2d 557 (Sieling & Jarvis Corp. v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc.) 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

Sieling & Jarvis Corp. v. National Bulk Carriers, Inc., 190 F.2d 557, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2459 (2d Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, a New York corporation, first sued the appellee, a Delaware corporation, in the District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover brokerage commissions alleged to be due on freight earned by steam tank vessels chartered to a third party, but after issue was joined failed to demand a trial by jury within the time limited by Rule 38(b), Fed.Rules, Civ. Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., and the cause was put on the non-jury trial calendar.

A motion to set the case for trial by jury having been denied, the appellant sued the appellee in the New York Supreme Court, County of New York, for the same commissions, alleging that they were in excess of $3,000. On the petition of appellee, this suit was removed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York and a trial by jury was then duly demanded. Thereupon the appellee moved to dismiss the removed cause of action on the ground that a prior suit between the same parties for the same cause of action was pending in the same court. This appeal is from an order dismissing the suit with costs but without prejudice.

Diversity of citizenship and the amount for which the state suit was brought made the appellee’s right to remove absolute under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). After this removal, there were two suits pending in the same court between the same parties for the same cause of action, i. e., the same commissions, even though it be true that additional damages had accrued between the commencement of the first suit and the bringing of the removed action. Cf. Chapman v. Potomac Chemical Co., 81 U.S.App.D.C. 406, 159 F.2d 459. And so the subsequent suit was properly abated in accordance with the rule which has been well settled ever since Renner & Bussard v. Marshall, 1 Wheat. 215, 14 U.S. 215, 4 L.Ed. 74.

Order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, a New York corporation, first sued the appellee, a Delaware corporation, in the District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover brokerage commissions alleged to be due on freight earned by steam tank vessels chartered to a third party, but after issue was joined failed to demand a trial by jury within the time limited by Rule 38(b), Fed.Rules, Civ. Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., and the cause was put on the non-jury trial calendar.

A motion to set the case for trial by jury having been denied, the appellant sued the appellee in the New York Supreme Court, County of New York, for the same commissions, alleging that they were in excess of $3,000. On the petition of appellee, this suit was removed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York and a trial by jury was then duly demanded. Thereupon the appellee moved to dismiss the removed cause of action on the ground that a prior suit between the same parties for the same cause of action was pending in the same court. This appeal is from an order dismissing the suit with costs but without prejudice.

Diversity of citizenship and the amount for which the state suit was brought made the appellee’s right to remove absolute under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). After this removal, there were two suits pending in the same court between the same parties for the same cause of action, i. e., the same commissions, even though it be true that additional damages had accrued between the commencement of the first suit and the bringing of the removed action. Cf. Chapman v. Potomac Chemical Co., 81 U.S.App.D.C. 406, 159 F.2d 459. And so the subsequent suit was properly abated in accordance with the rule which has been well settled ever since Renner & Bussard v. Marshall, 1 Wheat. 215, 14 U.S. 215, 4 L.Ed. 74.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 F.2d 557, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sieling-jarvis-corp-v-national-bulk-carriers-inc-ca2-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack