Provident Savings Life Assur Soc of New York v. Ford
Citation | 5 S.Ct. 1104,114 U.S. 635,29 L.Ed. 261 |
Parties | PROVIDENT SAVINGS LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF NEW YORK v. FORD |
Decision Date | 04 May 1885 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
S. G. Clarke and E. B. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Esek Cowen, for defendant in error.
This was an action brought in the supreme court of New York by Daniel W. Ford, the defendant in error, against the Provident Savings Life Assurance Company, the plaintiff in error, on a judgment recovered by one Charles Cochran against said company in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Ohio, and assigned by Cochran to the plaintiff, Ford. The complaint contained, among others, the following averments, to-wit:
The defendant, in answer to the complaint, admitted that Cochran had taken some proceedings in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Ohio, praying for judgment against the defendant; but averred that there was never any personal service of process, summons, or petition upon the defendant; and denied any knowledge of the recovery of any judgment as alleged in the complaint, or that Cochran had assigned the alleged judgment to Ford.
The cause came on for trial in February, 1879, but before the trial commenced the defendant presented a petition for the removal of the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the Norther district of New York, accompanied by a bond, which was approved by the court. The petition was as follows, to-wit:
'SUPREME COURT, RENSSELAER COUNTY.
'Daniel W. Ford against The Provident Savings Life Assurance Society of New York.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
...does not, in a suit upon the judgment, raise a question under the laws of the United States. In Provident Savings Society v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635, 641, 5 S. Ct. 1104, 1107, 29 L. Ed. 261, the court "What is a judgment, but a security of record showing a debt due from one person to another? I......
-
Shellenbarger v. Fewel.
...414, 416, 5 S. Ct. 208, 28 L. Ed. 794; Brown v. Houston, 114 U.S. 622, 5 S. Ct. 1091, 29 L. Ed. 257; Provident Say., etc., Society v. Ford, 114 U.S. 635, 642, 5 S. Ct. 1104, 29 L. Ed. 261; Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U.S. 1, 5 S. Ct. 1113, 29 L. Ed. 319; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 ......
-
Schwyhart v. Barrett
...on which it is based and amounts to nothing and will be disregarded. Little York Gold Co. v. Keys, 96 U.S. 190, 24 Law. Ed. 656; Bank v. Ford, 114 U.S. 635, 29 Law Ed. Hambledom v. Dunham, 22 F. 465; Railroad v. Dixon, 179 U.S. 131; Carson v. Dunham, 121 U.S. 421. (8) The fact that defendan......
-
Lang v. Colonial Pipeline Company
...exist. Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co., 284 U.S. 183, 52 S.Ct. 84, 76 L.Ed. 233 (1930); Provident Savings Life Assurance Society v. Ford, 114 U.S. 635, 5 S.Ct. 1104, 29 L.Ed. 261 (1885). The Congress has also expressly narrowed our diversity power by providing that a corporation shall be ......