Louisville Co v. Wangelin
Decision Date | 06 January 1890 |
Parties | LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. WANGELIN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 599-601 intentionally omitted] J. M. Hamill, for plaintiff in error.
C. W. Thomas, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
It has been often decided that an action brought in a state court against two jointly for a tort cannot be removed by either of them into the circuit court of the United States, under the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 2, upon the ground of a separable controversy between the plaintiff and himself, although the defendants have pleaded severally, and the plaintiff might have brought the action against either alone. 18 St. 471; Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1034, 1161; Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 275, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730; Mining Co. v. Canal Co., 118 U. S. 264, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1034; Hedge Co. v. Fuller, 122 U. S. 535, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1265. It is equally well settled that in any case the question whether there is a separable controversy which will warrant a removal is to be determined by the condition of the record in the state court at the time of the filing of the petition for removal, independently of the allegations in that petition, or in the affidavit of the petitioner, unless the petitioner both alleges and proves that the defendants were wrongfully made joint defendants for the purpose of preventing a removal into the federal court. In Mining Co. v. Canal Co., above cited, a suit by a canal company against a mining corporation and its agents, for polluting a stream of water belonging to the plaintiff, was held to have been rightly remanded to the state court in which it had been commenced, although the corporation's petition for removal alleged that it was the only real defendant, and that the other defendants were nominal parties only, and were sued for the purpose of preventing the corporation from removing the cause into the circuit court of the United States. Chief Justice WAITE, in delivering judgment, said: 118 U. S. 270, 271, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1038. In Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 596, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 32, where a bill in equity charged the defendants jointly with having fraudulently deprived the plaintiff of her property, Mr. Justice BRADLEY, delivering the opinion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pullman Co v. Jenkins 13 8212 14, 1938, 210
...205, 213-216, 26 L.Ed. 514; Graves v. Corbin, 132 U.S. 571, 585, 10 S.Ct. 196, 200, 33 L.Ed. 462; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Wangelin, 132 U.S. 599, 601, 10 S.Ct. 203, 33 L.Ed. 474; Salem Company v. Manufacturers' Company, 264 U.S. 182, 189, 190, 44 S.Ct. 266, 267, 68 L.Ed. 628, 31 A.......
-
Hough v. Southern Ry. Co.
...the removing defendant to allege and prove such fraudulent purpose. Doremus v. Root (C. C.) 94 F. 760. It was said by the court in Railroad v. Wangelin, supra, citing and from Plymouth Co. v. Amador Co., 118 U.S. 264, 6 S.Ct. 1034, 30 L.Ed. 232: "It is possible, also, that the company may b......
-
The State ex rel. Hancock v. Falkenhainer
...... removal, independently of the allegations in that petition or. in the affidavit of the petitioner." L. & N. Railroad v. Wangelin, 132 U.S. 599. If, under the State. law, plaintiff's petition shows that the defendants are. jointly liable (i. e., subject to joint suit and ......
-
Whiteaker v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
...... 117 U.S. 432; Carson v. Hyatt, 118 U.S. 279;. Railroad v. Dunn, 122 U.S. 513; Crehore v. Railroad, 131 U.S. 240; Railroad v. Wangelin, . 132 U.S. 599; Railroad v. Daughtry, 138 U.S. 298;. Railroad v. Herman, 187 U.S. 63; Traction Co. v. Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239; Railroad ......