Henry Whitcomb v. John Smithson
| Decision Date | 08 January 1900 |
| Docket Number | No. 150,150 |
| Citation | 20 S.Ct. 248,175 U.S. 635,44 L.Ed. 303 |
| Parties | HENRY F. WHITCOMB and Howard Moris, as Receivers of the Wisconsin Central Company, Plffs. in Err. , v. JOHN A. SMITHSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action brought in the district court of Ramsay county, Minnesota, by John A. Smithson against the Chicago, Great Western Railway Company, and H. F. Whitcomb and Howard Morris, receivers of the Wisconsin Central Company, to recover for personal injuries while he was serving the Chicago, Great Western Railway Company as a locomotive fireman, in a collision between the locomotive on which he was at work and another locomotive operated by Whitcomb and Morris, as receivers of the Wisconsin Railway Company, appointed by the United States circuit courts for the eastern district of Wisconsin and the district of Minnesota. The Chicago, Great Western Railway Company answered the complaint, and the receivers filed a petition for the removal of the cause into the circuit court of the United States for the dis- trict of minnesota, setting up diverse citizenship, and that they were officers of the United States courts; that the controversy was separable; and that the railway company was fraudulently made a party for the sole purpose of preventing the removal of the cause. Plaintiff answered the petition and asserted that the company was made party defendant in good faith, and not for that purpose. An order of removal was entered and the cause sent to the circuit court, and thereafterwards that court, on hearing on rule to show cause, remanded it to the district court of Ramsay county. Defendants Whitcomb and Morris being in default, it was stipulated between plaintiff and themselves that in consideration that plaintiff allowed them to answer, plaintiff should have a trial of the cause at the June term, 1896, of the court, and further 'in case of a final judgment in said action in favor of said plaintiff against said receivers, that the receivers will not oppose the allowance of the same before the master in chancery.' Whitcomb and Morris thereupon filed their answer.
The case came on for trial on the morning of April 20, 1897, when Whitcomb and Morris asked leave to file an amended answer, setting up that the court was without jurisdiction because the cause was pending in the circuit court. The application was denied, and said defendants excepted. The trial proceeded, and after the testimony was closed, on April 21, counsel for the Chicago, Great Western Railway Company moved that the jury be instructed to return a verdict in behalf of that defendant, which motion the court granted. Thereupon the receivers asked permission to file a petition for removal supplemental to the petition already on file, and proffer of petition and bond being treated as made, the court denied the application, and exception was taken. On the morning of April 22 the court instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the Chicago, Great Western Railway Company, which was done, and thereupon the case went to the jury, which returned a verdict on April 23 against Whitcomb and Morris as receivers, and assessed plaintiff's damages. Motion for new trial having been made and overruled, judgment was entered on the verdict, and was subsequently affirmed by the supreme court of Minnesota on appeal. 71 Minn. 216, 73 N. W. 853. The pending writ of error having been issued, motions to dismiss or affirm were submitted.
Messrs. Howard Morris and Thomas H. Gill for plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Self v. General Motors Corp.
...the defendants did not defeat removal. The next case in the development of the voluntary-involuntary rule was Whitcomb v. Smithson, 175 U.S. 635, 20 S.Ct. 248, 44 L.Ed. 303 (1900), where a directed verdict had been ordered in favor of the non-diverse defendant, arguably making the case appr......
-
Stith v. Newberry Co., 31563.
...Company a right to remove the case to the Federal Court. [Craig v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 271 Mo. 516, 197 S.W. 141; Whitcomb v. Smithson, 175 U.S. 635.] The joinder of the two defendants could not, under our present holding, have been merely colorable and with a fraudulent intent to......
-
McCormick v. Lowe and Campbell Ath. Goods Co.
...J.J. Newberry Co., 336 Mo. 467, 79 S.W. (2d) 447, 452; Zumwalt v. C. & A.R. Co., 308 Mo. 66, 266 S.W. 717, 726; Whitcomb v. Smithson, 175 U.S. 635, 44 L. Ed. 303, 20 S. Ct. 248; K.C., etc., Co. v. Herman, 187 U.S. 63, 23 S. Ct. 24, 47 L. Ed. 76; Lathrop, etc., Co. v. Interior Const. Co., 21......
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Aaron-Lincoln Mercury
...177 (1909); Kansas City Sub. Belt Ry. v. Herman, 187 U.S. 63, 69-70, 23 S.Ct. 24, 26-27, 47 L.Ed. 76 (1902); Whitcomb v. Smithson, 175 U.S. 635, 20 S.Ct. 248, 44 L.Ed. 303 (1900). 30 See Debry v. Transamerica Corp., 601 F.2d 480, 486-88 (10th Cir.1979); Self v. General Motors Corp., 588 F.2......
-
A Confusing Clarification: How the Bad-Faith Exception in 28 U.S.C. [section] 1446(c) Costs More Than It Is Worth.
...Aguayo, 59 F. Supp. 3d at 1268. (200) See DeBry v. Transamerica Corp., 601 F.2d 480, 487 (10th Cir. 1979) (citing Whitcomb v. Smithson, 175 U.S. 635 (201) Aguayo, 59 F. Supp. 3d at 1268. (202) See supra notes 99-107 and accompanying text. (203) See Percy, supra note 13, at 640, 641. (204) S......