Nash v. McNamara
Decision Date | 07 May 1906 |
Docket Number | 835. |
Parties | NASH et al. v. McNAMARA et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Campbell Metson & Brown, James A. MacKenzie, Key Pittman, and George A. Bartlett, for plaintiffs.
William Forman, B. G. Wilson, A. R. Needles, and L. A. Gibbons, for defendant.
The petition for removal in this case is on behalf of the Manhattan-Dexter Mining Company of Nevada, a corporation, and the Manhattan-Union Mining Company, a corporation. Both of said corporations were organized and existing under the laws of the state of South Dakota, and are therefore citizens and residents of said state. Many of the questions discussed by counsel are complicated in their nature and character; and it is questionable, to say the least, whether the views expressed by counsel for the plaintiffs in the court below who petitioned the state court for a removal of the case-- even if it could be hale that they should be treated as defendants-- can be sustained. The petition for removal is in many respects admitted to be defective. Taking the lengthy statement of facts prepared by the defendants which is admitted to be substantially correct, the court would perhaps be justified in disposing of the motion by simply stating that after a very thorough and careful examination of the entire record from the state court, it has grave doubts whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this case.
In Kessinger v. Vannatta (C.C.) 27 F. 890, the court said:
'Fitzgerald v. Missouri P. Ry. Co. (C.C.) 45 F. 812, 820; Hutcheson v. Bigbee (C.C.) 56 F. 329; Concord Coal Co. v. Haley (C.C.) 76 Fed 882; Johnson v. Wells Fargo & Co. (C.C.) 98 F. 3, 8; Plant v. Harrison (C.C.) 101 F. 307; McKnown v. Kansas & T. Coal Co. (C.C.) 105 F. 657; Groel v. United Electric Co. (C.C.) 132 F. 253, 265; Dodd v. Louisville B. Co. (C.C.) 130 F. 186, 198.
In Ernst v. American S. M. Co. (C.C.) 114 F. 981, the court said:
But I shall not dispose of the case on this ground alone. The petition is sui generis. No case like it has ever before been presented to this court. The original suit brought by the individual plaintiffs against the defendants could not have been brought in this court because, for all that appears in the petition and record from the state court, all of the parties plaintiff and defendant were citizens and residents of the state of Nevada. The rule is well settled that a suit cannot be removed on the ground of diverse citizenship unless the requisite citizenship existed both when the suit was begun and when the petition for removal was filed. The defendants in their amended answer and cross-complaint to the original complaint alleged that the corporations-- who are petitioners for removal-- were 'and each of them is a party necessary and proper to be joined as either plaintiffs or defendants in this suit. ' After proceedings had in the state court they were brought in and claimed that they had bought the interests of the original plaintiffs, stood in their shoes, and were the sole owners of the mining ground in controversy. They filed a regular complaint against the defendants, based substantially upon the same grounds as were set forth by the original plaintiffs; and after filing their complaint and submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the state court, they petitioned for a removal of the case to this court upon the ground of diverse citizenship, alleging that they were citizens and residents of South Dakota, and that the defendants were residents and citizens of the state of Nevada, and further averred in their petition for removal--
'That this suit is one in which there can be a final determination of the controversy between them and said defendants, without the presence of any other parties in the cause, the plaintiffs A. D. Nash, A. G. Raycraft, T. L. Oddie, and E. Sutro being now mere nominal parties whose interest, if they have any, is identical with that of your petitioners, between whom and said defendants there is now involved in this suit one sole and separable controversy.'
The right of removal exists only on behalf of a defendant. No...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schwyhart v. Barrett
... ... Ed. 910. (3) All doubts are to be ... resolved in favor of the jurisdiction of the State court ... Fitzgerald v. Railroad, 45 F. 819; Nash v ... McNamara, 145 F. 541; Kessinger v. Vannatta, 27 ... F. 890; Ernest v. American S. M. Co., 114 F. 981; ... Railroad v. Davidson, 157 ... ...
-
McCann v. BENTLEY STORES CORPORATION
...v. Waco Tap R. Co., C.C., 13 F. 705; Goodnow v. Dolliver, C.C., 26 F. 469; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Findley, C.C., 32 F. 641; Nash v. McNamara, C.C., 145 F. 541. Only the first of these cases is by an appellate tribunal. None of them is in In the Jefferson case the cause of action against th......
-
Hill v. Woodland Amusement Co.
... ... doubt on this point should be resolved in favor of an ... uninterrupted exercise by the state court of its ... unquestionable jurisdiction. Nash v. McNamara (C.C.) ... 145 F. 541; Groel v. United Electric Co. (C.C.) 132 ... F. 252; Crane Co. v. Guanica Centrale (C.C.) 132 F ... 713; McKown ... ...
-
Thomas v. Delta Land & Water Co.
... ... of removal in doubtful cases. Eddy v. Chicago & N.Y. Ry ... Co. (D.C.) 226 F. 120; Nash v. McNamara (C.C.) ... 145 F. 541; Vanderbilt v. Kerr (C.C.) 188 F. 537 ... Section ... 28 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c ... ...