Oroville & N.R. Co. v. Leggett

• Decision Date: 21 May 1908
• Docket Number: 14,602.
• Citation: 162 F. 571
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: OROVILLE & N.R. CO. v. LEGGETT et al.

162 F. 571

OROVILLE & N.R. CO. v. LEGGETT et al.

No. 14,602.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. California.

May 21, 1908

Wm. H Devlin, for plaintiff.

Roger Johnson, for defendant Nevada Gold Dredging Company.

W. E Duncan, Jr., for defendant James H. Leggett.

A. F Jones, for defendants Bank of Rideout, Smith & Co. and Boston & California Dredging Company.

FARRINGTON District Judge.

This action was brought in the superior court of the state of California for Butte county by Oroville & Nelson Railroad Company, a California corporation, against James H. Leggett Boston & California Dredging Company, a Maine corporation, Nevada Gold Dredging Company, a Nevada corporation, Valley Contracting Company, a California corporation, Bank of Rideout, Smith & Co., a California corporation, John Doe, Richard Roe, James Brown, and Peter Smith. The object of the suit is to condemn and appropriate for railroad purposes a strip of land situated in Butte county, Cal. On petition of the Nevada Gold Dredging Company the cause was removed to this court November 4, 1907, on the ground that it presents a separable controversy between that defendant and plaintiff. The defendant Leggett now moves to remand the case, because, as he contends, it involves no such controversy. The motion is resisted, not only by the dredging company, but also by plaintiff. No answer has been filed.

This court has no jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship, because plaintiff and several of the defendants are citizens of the same state. It is not pretended that a federal question is involved, and therefore the jurisdiction of this court depends upon the existence of a separable controversy between plaintiff and the said dredging company.

It has been held repeatedly that, in determining the existence of such a controversy, the court will look only to the record as it stood in the state court at the time the petition for removal was filed. 'The cause of the action is the subject-matter of the controversy, and that is, for all the purposes of the suit, whatever the plaintiff declares it to be in his pleadings. ' Alabama So. Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U.S. 206, 215, 26 Sup.Ct. 161, 163, 50 L.Ed. 441. 'The question whether there is a separable controversy warranting a removal to the Circuit Court of the United States must be determined by the state of the pleadings and the record of the case at the time of the application for removal, and not by the allegations of the petition therefor, or the subsequent proceedings which may be had in the Circuit Court. ' Wilson v. Oswego Township, 151 U.S. 56, 66, 14 Sup.Ct. 259, 263, 38 L.Ed. 70; Thomas v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 147 F. 83, 85, 77 C.C.A. 255; Offner v. Chicago, E. & R. Co., 148 F. 201, 202, 78 C.C.A. 359; Shane v. Butte Electric Ry. Co. (C.C.) 150 F. 801; Moon on Removal of Causes, Sec. 141, p. 402.

It is averred in the complaint:

'That plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that the defendant James H. Leggett claims to own and is the owner of the tract of land hereinbefore particularly described, and also the larger tract of which it is a part; that each of the defendants Boston & California Dredging Company, Valley Contracting Company, and Nevada Gold Dredging Company claims an interest or estate in said tract of land * * * and in said larger tract of which it is a part as lessees of said defendant James H. Leggett.'

The defendant Bank of Rideout, Smith & Co. holds a mortgage on said strip of land and on the larger tract of which it is a part. The remaining defendants claim interests in the land in question, the nature and extent of which are unknown to plaintiff.

That portion of the removal section of the judiciary act which is pertinent reads as follows:

'And when in any suit mentioned in this section there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district.' 4 Fed.St.Ann.p. 312.

The controversy between citizens of different states which is contemplated by this act is one 'which can be fully determined as between them. ' 'By the settled construction of this section, the whole subject-matter of the suit must be capable of being finally determined as between them, and complete relief afforded as to the separate cause of action, without the presence of others originally made parties to the suit. ' Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U.S. 527, 530, 12 Sup.Ct. 726, 727, 36 L.Ed. 528. This is especially true where the complaint presents but a single cause of action.

In the present case, the complaint simply shows that the land sought to be condemned is one tract all owned by defendant Leggett, that three of the defendants have leasehold interests therein, and that one has a mortgage lien thereon. The interest of each lessee and of the mortgagee may constitute a separate and distinct estate which will justify, and ultimately demand, a separate and distinct award; but, nevertheless, the object of the suit is to condemn the entire tract.

There is but a single cause of action. The relief sought against the leaseholders and the bank is but an incident to the main issue, and the fact that one of the leases may concern the dredging company alone does not render the action divisible. The plaintiff had a right to join as defendants all parties who claim an interest in the land in question, and thus extinguish in one action all adverse interests, and avoid further litigation. The plaintiff seeks complete, not partial, relief, and a decree which will adjudge to each defendant the value of his interest in the land.

The whole subject-matter of this action, as set out in the complaint, cannot be fully determined between plaintiff and the dredging company without the presence of other defendants, because the interests of Leggett and the bank extend to every part of the land, and both, like the plaintiff, are citizens of California. The fact that defendants can file separate answers, tendering distinct and varying issues relating to their respective estates in the one tract of land, does not create separable...